457/ENS/RSMS | The AAT makes a mistake?

​

If the visa applicants face an unfavourable decision from the department of immigration and border protection, they have another chance to appeal their case to an independent authority. That is Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly known as Migration Review Tribunal and merged into the AAT with Refugee Review Tribunal last year). The members of Tribunal are not related to the department of immigration, therefore they would review your visa application with fresh eyes.

​

Recently, we found a very interesting AAT decision in relation to Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) case. The appellant is a British National and he has almost 15 years experience in the Kitchen with various roles, but mostly Cook/Chef. He has lodged his subclass 187 direct entry stream application without any academic qualification at time of application.

​

According to Reg. 187.234(b)​, if the nominated occupation is specified by the immigration minister (Cook position is specified by the minister), the applicant must have an Australian qualification or his skill has been assessed by the skill assessment authority (for cook, TRA is the authority).

​

​

​

Fortunately(?), the member applied Sub-reg. 187.234(c) to this case. According to the ANZSCO, the required qualification for cook position is a Certificate III + 2 years experience or Certificate IV or at least 3 years full-time experience may replace the formal qualification. The appellant has almost 15 years experience as Cook, so the tribunal concluded that he met Reg. 187.234.

​

​

​Do we interpret the provision wrong? or AAT member did?