Yu (Migration) [2021] AATA 2206 (16 June 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Mr Xiao Yu
CASE NUMBER: 2006290
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/5337203
MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic
DATE:16 June 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.
Statement made on 16 June 2021 at 2:47pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – graduate work stream – Australian study requirement – qualification closely related to nominated occupation – qualification in translating and occupation of accountant – no visa application made within six months of completing previous closely related qualification – unable to find work in Australia or return to home country – content of qualification compared with ANZSCO description of occupation – decision under review affirmedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15F(1), Schedule 2, cls 485.221, 485.222CASES
Chawdhury v MIAC [2010] FMCA 275
Constantino v MIBP [2013] FCA 1301
MIBP v Dhillon (2014) 227 FCR 525
Shafiuzzaman v MIAC [2011] FMCA 874
Talha v MIBP [2015] FCAFC 115
Uddin v MIAC [2010] FCA 1281STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 March 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 24 October 2019. Visa Class VC contains Subclass 485. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa are set out in Part 485 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy cl.485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s Advanced Diploma of Translating completed in August 2019 was closely related to the nominated occupation of Accountant. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal.
The applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision on 29 March 2020.
On 19 April 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it had considered the material before it and was unable to make a favourable decision on this material alone and invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 16 June 2021.
The applicant appeared via video conference before the Tribunal on 16 June 2021, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant is 29 years of age and a citizen of China. He first arrived in Australia in October 2011 as the holder of a Student visa.
He confirmed in his evidence that he completed the following courses in Australia:
·Advanced Diploma of Translation at Sydney Institute of Interpreting and Translation (SIIT), completed in August 2019, with the registered duration of 52 weeks;
Continue reading Yu (Migration)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Yu (Migration) [2021] AATA 2206
- Case
- [2021] AATA 2206
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, specifically cl.485.221 and cl.485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. These clauses mandate that an applicant must have satisfied the ‘Australian study requirement’ in the six months preceding the visa application and that any qualifications used to meet this requirement must be closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation.
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the Australian study requirement. While the applicant had completed several registered courses in Australia, including an Advanced Diploma of Translation, a Master of Professional Accounting, and a Bachelor of Business and Commerce, the Tribunal concluded that these qualifications, when considered together, did not meet the criteria for the ‘Australian study requirement’ as defined by r.1.15F(1) of the Regulations. The applicant's nominated occupation was accountant, and the Tribunal implicitly found that the qualifications were not closely related to this occupation, nor did the applicant meet the Australian study requirement. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.