Number of invitations for 70 points went down. Lower threshold for Electronics Engineers. Total amount of invitations remained the same.
The Department has just released the details of SkillSelect’s 11 September 2018 invitation round. The number of invitations for visa subclasses 189 and 489 remained the same at 2,490 and 10, respectively. The writer respectfully finds it difficult to reconcile those numbers with the government’s recent talk about the need to promote regional growth.
When compared to the previous invitation round of 11 August 2018, the September round saw a significant decrease of about 27% in the number of invitations sent out to those who claimed 70 points, from 834 to about 605. According to the website, no-one was invited with less than 70 points.
Practitioners should be mindful of the need to advise clients that although the minimum score required for the above subclasses for the purposes of eligibility is 65 points, that does not mean that 65 points are sufficient to result in an invitation, as proven by recent invitation rounds. After all, something being required does not necessarily equate to it also being sufficient. The website does not give the number of invitations to apply for visa subclass 190.
Out of the occupations for which invitation numbers are available through SkillSelect’s website, it seems that Electronic Engineers were the only ones who had reasons to celebrate. The threshold for invitations for that occupation went from 75 to 70 points from August to September. The writer’s overseas colleagues who obtained a Bachelor Degree in Engineering with him will be happy with the news.
Disclaimer: the above is a mere reproduction of a website. The views expressed in those documents might not reflect the view of the Department, the AAT or the courts. The law or policies might have changed between the writing and reading of this article. The author of this article and Migration Law Updates disclaim any liability for any action (or omission) on their part based on any information provided (or not provided) in this article and are under no obligation to keep the general public nor practitioners informed about the matters discussed in this article or any other matters, or any future changes to any of those matters. It is the responsibility of each practitioner to obtain access to primary sources of law and policy by themselves and to carry out their own research and come to their own conclusions on legislation, case law, policies and more. This article is not intended for the general public.