System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1496

High Court and 485 visa applicant: Delegate acted with legal unreasonableness


On 30 November 2015, the plaintiff applied for a Temporary Graduate (Graduate Work) (Subclass 485) visa.

The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 485 visa included, under reg 485.224 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), the following:

“(1) The skills of the applicant for the applicant’s nominated skilled 30 occupation have been assessed, during the last 3 years, by a relevant assessing authority as suitable for that occupation.

(1A) If the assessment is expressed to be valid for a particular period, that period has not ended.

(2) If the applicant’s skills were assessed on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia while the applicant held a student visa, the qualification was obtained as a result of studying a registered course.

” At the time of lodging his application for visa, the plaintiff had not been assessed by a relevant assessing authority as suitable for his occupation of Carpenter 331212, but he had undergone the assessment process and evidently expected that he would pass the assessment."

On or about 18 March 2016, the plaintiff received from the Department a letter dated 18 March 2016 notifying him that his application for visa had been refused because he had not satisfied the provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

The letter enclosed a Decision Record, also dated 18 March 2016. On 24 March 2016, the plaintiff received a letter from the TRA notifying him that his Provisional Skills Assessment Review application had been successful for the occupation of Carpenter 331212.

The plaintiff forthwith supplied a copy of that notification by email to the Department with a request for reconsideration of his application for visa.

On 6 April 2016, the plaintiff received from the Department a response advising that it could not revisit a decision but that the plaintiff could make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”).


The High Court has rejected the Minister’s submission that there was an evident basis for the delegate proceeding to determine the application without waiting the time required for completion of the TRA

"In my view, it was not open for a reasonable decision-maker to act in that manner in the circumstances of this case. I consider that the delegate acted with legal unreasonableness in adopting the course she did."

Source: SYL-v-Minister.pdf


Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • Guest
    Vu Le Tuesday, 12 March 2019

    Would this case be applicable a student fail to provide AFP Certificate at time of application?

  • Guest
    Bea Leoncini Wednesday, 13 March 2019

    All of us have (and continue to) experience how quickly many Departmental delegates jumps to a decision without waiting, even when they had been advised of further information being sought (third party time-frames being outside the applicants' control). Surely, providing applicants with considered and reasonable additional time, where warranted, should be the norm to ensure due diligence, instead of feeling the pressure to possible to make a decision.- how many cases are out there in which the department took ages for decisions to be made and no-one self-combusted? (within the Department, I mean - thinking about the Old Skilled Migration applications as a case in point...).

    A very clear decision. It would be interesting to see how it can assist people who are in similar situations (and out of time) for judicial review.

    Thanks Liana (and the MA Team) for posting these, always.


  • Guest
    Mohammad Saghir KHAN Thursday, 14 March 2019

    Thanks Liana for sharing the case.
    My client is in somewhat similar situation, he applied for sc485 Graduate stream and failed to fulfill reg 485.224 of Sch 2. CO refused the visa application without RFI. Wondering if I could refer this case to justify "Legal unresonableness in case proceedings"?

Leave your comment

Guest Thursday, 23 May 2019
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Westpac Banner
Jurisdictional error and "materiality"
Larney v Minister for Immigration & Anor&...
Continue Reading...
No Bridging Visa B but travel anyway??? What the....
I do not know what is happening but perhaps there ...
Continue Reading...
Australian Citizenship Instructions valid or invalid?
A recent decision of the Full Federal Court will b...
Continue Reading...
Updated information on South Australian and Western Goldfields DAMAs
South Australian State Government published furthe...
Continue Reading...
SkillSelect May 2019 invitation round
The following information has been released on the...
Continue Reading...