Legislation Updates

Migration Legislation Tracker

A single source about the status of pieces of legislation, Bills, commencement dates, disallowances, etc

Assessing authorities for subclass 494 visas

"The instrument amends LIN 19/260 to update the assessing authorities for certain occupations on the MLTSSL and the ROL" The new Migration (Assessing Authorities for...

Specification of occupations and assessing authorities

"The instrument amends LIN 19/051 to update the relevant assessing authorities for skilled occupations on the MLTSSL, the STSOL and the ROL relevant to applications for subclass 189, 190, 491 and 485 visas"

Case Law Updates

Sub 485: meaning of “closely related” – Part 2

Federal Circuit Court. Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". This decision concerned cl 485.213(b), which was drafted in identical terms. Is it "necessary that the [completion of the course used to satisfy the Australian study requirement] be a prerequisite to a person’s being qualified to conduct the nominated skilled occupation"? Does the fact that the course used to satisfy the Australian study requirement provided generic skills that do not directly relate to the nominated occupation mean that the course is not closely related to that occupation?

Sub 485: meaning of “closely related” – Part 1

Federal Court (Full Court). Cl 485.222: "Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation". This decision concerned cl 485.213(b), which was drafted in identical terms. Can it be inferred from those provisions "that an assessment of the visa applicant’s skills for his or her nominated skilled application could be based on an assessment of the applicant’s qualifications obtained overseas and need not necessarily include any qualification obtained in Australia"? In reaching its conclusion at [47], the Tribunal had only considered ANZSCO's occupational description and the minor group in ANZSCO which included that occupation. Was it a jurisdictional error for the Tribunal to ignore the higher ANZSCO levels, namely the sub-major group and the major group?

“do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis”

High Court. Can a couple live "separately and apart" even when they reside in the same home? Is it possible for a couple who maintain "separate residences" to not be living separately and apart, so long as they live as a "single household"?

Copyrighted Image

error: Content is protected !!