Schedule 6D - Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - Points Test - ANZSCO - Solicitor - Barrister



Points Test

Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311)

Barrister (ANZSCO 271111)

Schedule 6D, Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 


Legislation & Statutory Instruments referred to in this page

Migration Act 1958 (Cth): <https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1958A00062/latest/text>. 

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth): <https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/latest/text>. For schedules 2 to 13, see Vol 3 <https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/latest/text/3>. 

Migration (LIN 19/051: Specification of Occupations and Relevant Assessing Authorities) Instrument 2019 (Cth): <https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2019L00278/latest/text>. 

Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth): <https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04489/latest/text>. 

Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992 (Qld): <https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1992-067>. 

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA): <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_3558_homepage.html>. 

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld): <https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2007-024>. 

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA): <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a147341.html>. 


[#] Migration Act 1958 (Cth); Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

[A] ANZSCO Solicitor 271311 v Barrister 271111 & Skills Assessments

> but see, Occupational Standard Classification for Australia (OSCA): <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/osca-occupation-standard-classification-australia/2024-version-1-0>, from 6 December 2024. 

> "The Tribunal notes that this is also appears to be the process contemplated by the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3), which provide guidance to Departmental decision-makers: 110 Assessment against the nominated occupation in  ANZSCO ... 110.2 For nominations made on or after 1 July 2010 Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: for the occupation in the relevant  ANZSCO  code or if there is no  ANZSCO  code for the nominated occupation, the occupation in the legislative instrument for the purpose of regulation 2.72(10)(aa). 110.3 Assessment ASCO/ ANZSCO  or the instrument should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for occupations in Australia. ASCO/ ANZSCO  skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. In  ANZSCO  the skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. When using  ANZSCO  as a reference, case officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic  ANZSCO  Skill Level. In some occupations (for example teachers,  barristers  and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, case officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ASCO/ ANZSCO  provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment case officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation. For example,  ANZSCO  suggests that an architect should hold a bachelor degree or higher qualification. If an applicant was nominated as an architect and provided evidence of holding a Bachelor of Law degree, it would be inappropriate to grant the visa as completing a Bachelor of Law degree would not have provided the applicant with the skills required to design a building. On the other hand,  ANZSCO  suggests that a marketing specialist should also hold a bachelor degree or higher qualification. If an applicant was nominated as a marketing specialist and they held a bachelor degree in business or sales for example, these degrees would be relevant to the occupation of marketing specialist so the delegate could be satisfied that the applicant had the requisite skills. If an applicant is unable to demonstrate skills and experience in a range of tasks, officers should consider whether or not the applicant is able to attribute 100% of their skills and experience to one of the sub-set of tasks prescribed. Although it is more favourable from an employer’s perspective, for an applicant to possess a range of skills and experience that covers the breadth of tasks prescribed under the nominated occupation, it should not provide grounds for refusal of the applicant’s application. For example, if an applicant were to nominate an occupation listed under a “not elsewhere classified" heading, it would be unreasonable to consider that the applicant possesses skills and experience in every prescribed task. Officers should also consider that some applicants will be highly skilled yet specialised in a small range of tasks rather than the range of duties. As this program is designed to enable employers to meet skill shortages, this degree of specialisation is acceptable for applicants for the program. ... 111 Requesting applicants to provide evidence of skills, qualifications and employment background If there is insufficient detail provided by the applicant to satisfy officers that the applicant has the necessary skills, qualifications and employment background for the nominated occupation, officers may request the applicant to provide additional information. If officers require further information, they should specify the evidence that the visa applicant is required to provide. Based on the circumstances of the case this may include (but is not limited to): formal qualifications formal and/or on-the-job training work and/or relevant experience employment references a skills assessment for migration purposes - see section 131 Skilled migration skills assessments and ability to meet any relevant Australian registration or licensing requirements - see Qualifications and experience.": 1313376 [2015] MRTA 769, [16] <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/769.html>. 

> PAM3 - THE SUBCLASS 457 CATEGORIES: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/1994-2005/legend_2000_2005_m/legend_2005_m/legend_13_12_2005_m/legend_13_12_2005_mp/Pages/_document00000/_level%20100135/level%20200624.aspx>. -- "... 25.3      Skill threshold   The minimum skills threshold - see regulation 1.20G(2) - requires all applicants to have the background and skills to perform the activities for which they have been nominated. Where doubts exist, the applicant can be asked to get a formal qualification assessment. If the applicant clearly does not have the minimum skills to undertake the duties of the approved nomination the visa must be refused. Officers should have regard to all the information provided by the applicant in their visa application in regard to their abilities, including formal qualifications, training, experience, special skills and other personal attributes. In some occupations eg teacher, barrister or nurse, formal qualifications are essential. However, in other occupations, formal qualifications can be considered as one aspect of the applicant's abilities and they may acquire the skill level required through on-the-job training and work experience.". 

> "In relation to the requirements of paragraph 457.223(4)(da), the departmental policy guidelines in PAM3[9] provide: 110.2 For nominations made on or after 1 July 2010 Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: for the occupation in the relevant  ANZSCO  code or if there is no  ANZSCO  code for the nominated occupation, the occupation in the legislative instrument for the purpose of regulation 2.72(10)(aa). 110.3 Assessment ASCO/ ANZSCO  or the instrument should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for occupations in Australia. ASCO/ ANZSCO  skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. In  ANZSCO  the skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. When using  ANZSCO  as a reference, case officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic  ANZSCO  Skill Level. In some occupations (for example teachers,  barristers  and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, case officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ASCO/ ANZSCO  provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment case officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation. ... [Tribunal emphasis]": 1412055 [2015] MRTA 802, [25] <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/802.html>. 

-> ASCO Dictionary: <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/5C244FD9D252CFC8CA25697E00184D35>; 1st ed, <https://www.whatjobspay.com.au/doc/ASCO%20Dictionary,%20First%20Edition.pdf>. 

> See also, N03/07303 [2005] MRTA 832 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2005/832.html>. 

> "In relation to the requirements of paragraph 457.223(4)(da), the departmental policy guidelines in PAM3[34] provide: ... Assessment against the nominated occupation in ANZSCO     Under regulation 2.72(10)(e)(iv), for nominations made on or after 1 July 2010, the qualifications and experience of the person nominated to fill the occupation, should be commensurate with the qualifications and experience specified: ... Nominations made before 1 July 2010 are covered by regulation 2.72(10)(d)(iv). When assessing this criterion, ANZSCO should be referred to as the principal source of information on the normal tasks or duties and skill requirements for the nominated occupation. In ANZSCO, skill level references represent the entry level skills required for a particular occupation. The skill level is defined at the Unit Group (4 digit level). In some cases, a higher qualification or level of experience will be required to complete the full range of duties competently. Officers should refer to the indicative skill level specified for the nominated occupation rather than the generic ANZSCO Skill Level. In some occupations (for teachers, barristers and nurses) formal qualifications are mandatory to undertake the role and the applicant must provide evidence of holding these qualifications with the application. In other occupations, significant experience in performing the tasks of the nominated occupation at a competent level can be considered as equivalent to formal qualifications. In all cases, officers must be satisfied that the applicant has the skills to be able to perform the nominated occupation. ANZSCO provides guidance as to the level of qualification required and/or the number of years of experience a person should have in order to be able to perform the occupation. However, when making their assessment officers should be mindful that the qualifications and experience of the applicant must be relevant to the nominated occupation ...": McMichael (Migration) [2017] AATA 390, [46]. 


[A.1] Skills Assessment - Solicitors and Barristers

ANZSCO Skill Level

> "There had been a problem in relation to persons who were 'barristers and solicitors' in other States seeking to be admitted in Queensland purely as barristers, without the appropriate experience and without attending the professional requirements and training for barristers under the Barristers Admission Rules 1975 (~ld).~~ Interstate practice is now addressed under the 'travelling' provisions of the 2004 Act ... 77 Re Lavery and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 2) (1996) 43 ALD 13; see also the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court Queensland Law Society v Sande (No 2) [I9981 1 Qd R 273. 78 Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) ss 74-78,230-242.": Michael White, 'The Development of the Divided Legal Profession in Queensland' (2004) 23 University of Queensland Law Journal 296, 307 <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/2004/25.pdf>. 

> Re Lavery and Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 2) (1996) 43 ALD 13, headnotes: "The tribunal then considered the merits of the decision under review. It examined in detail the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act (NT) relating to admission to practice as a legal practitioner and the entitlement that flowed from that admission. It then examined the history and effect of the equivalent provisions in the legislation that had dealt with the admission to legal practice of persons in Queensland. It concluded that in the Northern Territory there was only one profession or occupation for which a person may be registered if wishing to practise law. In Queensland there are two such professions and they are distinct. A comparision for the determination of equivalence could not be made between the occupation of legal practitioner in the Northern Territory and the occupation of barrister and solicitor in Queensland because such an occupation did not exist. The decision of the respondent to refuse admission of the applicant as a barrister and solicitor was therefore correct. It was not necessary for the tribunal to express an opinion on the question whether the applicant could seek admission as a solicitor in Queensland.". See also, "(48) It seems to us that it is important to answer this question before we can determine whether or not there is an equivalent occupation in Queensland. Mr Lavery's notice dated 6 September 1995 stated that he was “admitted as a legal practitioner, that is as a barrister and solicitor, of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia” (T documents, p 22). On the basis of the Master's Certificate issued on 24 August 1995, we are satisfied that Mr Lavery was admitted as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 4 December 1989. Also on the basis of that certificate, we are satisfied that his name remains on the roll of legal practitioners of that court and has never been removed from it. We also find that his right to practise in the Northern Territory has not been cancelled or suspended. (49) What is a “legal practitioner” in the Northern Territory? A legal practitioner is defined in the Legal Practitioners Act (NT) (the LP Act). The general effect of that definition is that a person is a legal practitioner if his or her name is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (the NT Roll) (LP Act, s 6 and Legal Practitioners Rules (the LP Rules), r 3). On the NT Roll is entered the name of each person admitted as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (r 3(1)(a)). (50) A person other than a legal practitioner may not hold him or her self out to be a legal practitioner. Furthermore, he or she may not hold him or her self out as qualified to perform any functions of a legal practitioner. (LP Act, s 131(1)) Certain documents, such as a will or an instrument creating or regulating rights between persons in relation to property or legal proceedings, may not be drawn by a person other than a legal practitioner (LP Act, s 132(1)). (51) The qualifications, requirements and procedures to be followed for admission to practise are regulated by the LP Rules (LP Act, s 11(1)). Part 3 of those rules regulate the admission of legal practitioners. Where admission is sought by a person already admitted in another Australian jurisdiction, no distinction is drawn between those legal practitioners who may have been admitted as barristers, those who may have been admitted as solicitors, those who may have been admitted as barristers, solicitors, proctors and attorneys or those who may have been admitted in some other way as legal practitioners. Provided a person meets the academic and other standard set out in the LP Rules, he or she may be admitted as a legal practitioner. (52) On admission as a legal practitioner, no distinction is to be found in the LP Act or the LP Rules (or, indeed in any Northern Territory legislation that we have searched) between the activities that may be undertaken by a person who wishes to practise his or her profession as if he or she were solely a barrister and those that may be undertaken by a person who wishes to practise his or her profession as a solicitor, proctor or attorney. Although the term “legal practitioner” is not defined in the LP Act in more specific terms than those used in s 6, it is arguable that all such persons come within the term “legal practitioners” and not simply those who may be described as “barristers” or “solicitors” as Mr Lavery sought to do in his notice of 6 September 1995. This is apparent from the history of the development of the legal profession in England. That history, including the separate development of various classes of legal practitioners, is summarised in the opening chapter of Harrison's Law and Conduct of the Legal Profession in Queensland (2nd ed, GN Williams J, 1984). That history is reflected in the legislation of other States, such as South Australia. Section 5 defines a legal practitioner to mean a barrister and solicitor and a solicitor to include a proctor and attorney. What is the occupation (or the occupations if more than one) for which a person practising law may be registered in Queensland? (55) This question is best answered by first looking at the historical development of the legal profession in Queensland. As much of the present State of Queensland originally formed part of the colony of New South Wales (Letters Patent and Commission dated 2 April 1787 and granted to the Governor of New South Wales — Warrant for the Charter of Justice, HRA Series 1V, vol 1, 6–12), it follows that the Australian Courts Act 1828 (9 Geo 4, c 83) applied to Queensland. Section 16 of that Imperial Act provided that the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales could make rules regarding “… the admission of attornies, solicitors, and barristers, …” The Barristers Act 1848 (11 Vic. No 57) (the Barristers Act) provided for the creation of a board to approve the admission of those properly qualified for admission as barristers. (56) Following the establishment of Queensland as a colony separate from New South Wales, the matter of admission came to be governed by the Supreme Court Act 1867 (31 Vic No 23) (the 1867 Act). That legislation provided that the Supreme Court of Queensland and its judges would be held to have always had within the colony of Queensland all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and its judges: s 34. (57) Under s 40 of the 1867 Act: Any attorney, solicitor or proctor of good repute in his profession having been three years in actual practice in Great Britain or the colony who shall pass the examination in classics or mathematics prescribed for persons seeking admission to the bar or who shall have a certificate of honour or other academical distinction in classics mathematics or law from any university or college within the British dominions may upon motion in open court be called and admitted a barrister-at-law. Provided that when so called and admitted he shall cease to practise as an attorney solicitor or proctor and shall be struck off the Roll of the Supreme Court … (58) To this point in the history of Queensland, there appears to have been a division between the person wbo was an attorney, solicitor and proctor and the person who was a barrister. Lest we appear to have overlooked the use of the male pronoun in that part of the section which we have quoted, we note that, until the Legal Practitioners Act 1905 (the 1905 Act), a woman could not be admitted as a “… barrister, solicitor, or conveyancer, as the case … [might] be” (s 2). The very language of s 2 of the 1905 Act suggests a division among the classes of legal practitioner to which it referred but we shall return to that later in these reasons. ... (76) It is apparent from this summary of the statutory provisions affecting the legal profession that there is a division between what we will for the moment call the “office” of a barrister and that of a solicitor. The admission (ie the registration) for each is entirely separate from the other. A person may not be “registered” for both at the same time. (77) The functions of the two “offices” are a different matter. In relation to those functions, it can be said that there is a blurring of the line between the two. This is particularly as a result of the right of audience given to solicitors as a result of the 1973 Act (see para 71 above) and in other legislation such as the Justices Act 1886 (s 72), the District Courts Act 1967 (s 52) and the Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (s 18). Despite the blurring, it can be said that the barrister's main function is that of advocacy and, on appropriate instructions, the preparation of work, such as pleadings and affidavits, in connection with litigation. ... May Mr Lavery be registered as a barrister and solicitor in Queensland? (78) This question is best answered by returning to the specific question we must consider in light of the provisions of s 29(1) — are the activities of the occupation of a legal practitioner for which Mr Lavery may be registered in the Northern Territory substantially the same as the activities of an occupation for which Mr Lavery may be registered in Queensland? (79) The Act does not define the meaning of “occupation” but it would seem from the context of the legislation that it should be given its ordinary meaning ie an occupation is: … What a person is (habitually) engaged in, esp to earn a living; a job, a business, a profession; a pursuit, an activity …” (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). (80) In the Northern Territory, there is, generally speaking, only one profession, pursuit or activity (ie occupation) for which a person may be registered if he or she wishes to practise law. We say “generally speaking” for we are aware that a notation may be added against the name of a person on the Roll of Legal Practitioners so that he or she may practise only as a barrister. Whether or not this amounts to “registration” within the meaning of the Act is not something which we must decide. In Queensland, there are clearly two such professions, pursuits or activities (ie occupations) and it is quite clear from the historical context and the current legislative provisions that the two are quite distinct. A person may not be admitted and so on the roll (ie registered) for both at the same time. (81) Nothing in s 29(1) or in the Act generally requires that there may be a comparison between an occupation in the first state and an amalgamation of occupations in the second. Section 29(1) speaks clearly of “an occupation” in the first and “an occupation” in the second [Emphasis added]. That means that the comparison must be between the occupation of a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory and an occupation of a barrister in Queensland. Having done that, the comparison must then be made with the occupation of a solicitor in Queensland. The comparison cannot be made between the occupation of a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory on the one hand and the occupation of a barrister and solicitor in Queensland on the other for such a fused occupation does not exist. (82) Only once the occupations have been identified in this way can there be a comparison of the activities authorised to be carried on under each registration. Once that comparison is made and regard is had to the extensive right of audience given to solicitors in Queensland, it may well be that registration as a legal practitioner in the Northern Territory is equivalent to registration as a solicitor in Queensland. We do not, however, need to decide that point in this case and we do not express any concluded view. ..."

> "(23) The applicant stated that the respondent's approach would mean that people with less qualifications and experience than himself would be entitled to practise as solicitors with unrestricted practising rights in the Australian Capital Territory while he would be denied this right. He submitted that the substantial activities must be looked at and the respondent's contentions raise an artificial barrier which mutual recognition aims at overcoming. The applicant stated that equivalence of occupation should be determined by the substantial activities of the occupations, not by title. ... (28) The tribunal stated at the outset that the only issue which it may consider is the applicant's entitlement to registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. Lockhart J in Sande v Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland (1994) 33 ALD 713 ; 134 ALR 560 at 565 stated that the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 must be applied in a practical, commonsense manner and regard must be had to the substance of the matter and the substantial equivalence of occupations. Section 17(1) of this Act clearly requires registration for an equivalent occupation. The tribunal accepts that the threshold question is to ask for what occupation is the applicant registered in the first state. This occupation must then be compared to that for which he seeks registration in the second state. In Queensland the applicant is registered for the occupation of barrister. In New South Wales the applicant has been issued with a restricted practising certificate as a solicitor. The applicant is therefore prima facie entitled to a restricted practising certificate as a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory, which is what he has been granted. He is also entitled to set up practice as a barrister at the independent bar of the Australian Capital Territory. (29) Section 29(1) of the Act states that an occupation for which persons may be registered in the first state is taken to be equivalent to an occupation for which persons may be registered in the second state if the activities authorised to be carried out under each registration are substantially the same. The tribunal is unable to find that the activities authorised to be carried out by a barrister in Queensland are substantially the same as the activities authorised to be carried out by a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent made submissions as to the work he undertook as a barrister in Queensland. He summarised this as being mainly advocacy work, including receiving prepared briefs, arranging appointments with clients to provide legal opinion and advice and undertaking research. He stated that he also undertook duty lawyer work at courts. However, the applicant did not make any submissions as to the activities authorised to be carried out by a solicitor with an unrestricted practising certificate in the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent did not make submissions on the specific activities authorised to be carried out by either of these occupations other than the different categories of admission that exist. The tribunal feels that it cannot be said that the activities authorised to be carried out by the two occupations are substantially similar. To begin with, the legal profession in Queensland is divided, whereas admission to the legal profession in the Australian Capital Territory is as a barrister and solicitor. A solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory may on occasions undertake advocacy work and appear before courts and tribunals, but a barrister is not ordinarily authorised to undertake the substantive work of a solicitor. There is some scope for overlap between the two occupations, however one cannot say that there is substantial equivalence. The applicant contends that the tribunal should adopt the reasoning of Deputy President McMahon in Re Cleary , above, namely that in defining the relevant occupation one should look at the activities of the occupation rather than the legal structure within which the occupation operates. The tribunal adopts this approach, but concludes that the activities authorised to be undertaken by a solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory and a barrister in Queensland are substantially different. ... (31) The applicant's New South Wales registration does not assist him in this matter as he is not fully registered in New South Wales either for the occupation of practising barrister or for the occupation of practising solicitor. The applicant has been registered by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory as a barrister and solicitor and this is the only step needed for him to practise as a barrister. Equivalence in an occupation for which the applicant is registered has thus been achieved. If he wished to do so he could commence practice as a member of the Independent Bar of Canberra without further qualification or the issue of a certificate. However, to practise as a solicitor in any capacity under the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 (ACT) he would require a practising certificate. He is only entitled to that registration in the Australian Capital Territory if he can rely upon his already being registered for an equivalent occupation in another state. ...": Kozera and Law Society of the ACT (1997) 46 ALD 785 (AATA). 

> "... The Mutual Recognition Acts passed by the Australian parliaments in 1992 were part of a national scheme, not limited to lawyers, for the recognition throughout Australia of occupational qualifications. As beneficial as that legislation may have been, it was administratively inconvenient and raised awkward questions about the equivalence of occupations in the context of separate Bars and fused professions. Those problems have been largely circumvented by the statutory introduction of National Practising Certificates, the benefits of which we are as a profession only beginning to harvest. ...": 'Editorial' (2002) 22 Aust Bar Review 89, 90-91. 

> ** "[Headnotes] (iii) The onus rests upon a person arguing for equivalence of occupations to show that the activities authorised to be carried out under the respective occupations are substantially the same.": Re Sande and the Supreme Court of Queensland (1995) 38 ALD 639 (AATA). 

> "In Western Australia all barristers and solicitors are practically in the one class, without distinction. ... ": Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Western Australia, 14 September 1932, at 604 (Sleeman, Fremantle) <https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/lh/1932-09-14/pdf/download>. 

> "28) The relevant occupation, for the purposes of the MR Act, in the present case is that of a legal practitioner — more specifically, barrister and solicitor. In the Australian Capital Territory and in Western Australia an individual carrying on that occupation is “subject to more than one system of registration” and “more than one local registration authority” within the meaning of s 18(2) of the MR Act, because in each of those jurisdictions that occupation “involves both the admission as a legal practitioner by a court and the issue of a practising certificate by another body”: see s 18(3) of the MR Act. In each of those jurisdictions admission as a barrister and solicitor is effected by the relevant Supreme Court, whereas practising certificates are issued by another body — in the Australian Capital Territory, by The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory; in Western Australia, by the respondent. (29) Section 18(2) of the MR Act provides that Pt 3 of that Act applies “in relation to each such system of registration and each such (local registration) authority”. In the present case the applicant was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the Australian Capital Territory by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 20 December 1996. The applicant was, therefore, entitled, by virtue of s 20(1) of the MR Act, to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor in Western Australia, provided that he had lodged a notice under s 19 of that Act. The applicant was, on 2 May 1997, admitted as a barrister and solicitor in Western Australia by the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. (30) The applicant has not been issued with a practising certificate by The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory or any other equivalent local registration authority in any state or territory in Australia. Section 20(1) of the MR Act does not, therefore, confer any entitlement upon the applicant to be issued with an annual practice certificate by the respondent. (31) Section 20(2) of the MR Act empowers a local registration authority to grant registration to a person on the ground of that person's entitlement to such registration pursuant to s 20(1), and s 20(5) empowers the authority to impose conditions on such registration. Because the applicant had no entitlement to the issue of an annual practice certificate in Western Australia, it follows that s 20(2) of the MR Act does not confer authority on the respondent to issue such a certificate to the applicant. It necessarily also follows that s 20(5) of the MR Act does not confer authority on the respondent to impose conditions on the issue of such a certificate to the applicant. ...": Mulligan and the Legal Practice Board (1998) 50 ALD 940 (AATA). 

> Barrister-sole and Barrister and Solicitor distinguished, WA: 

-> "barristers owe duties to the courts, to their clients and to their barrister and solicitor colleagues": Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (WA) r 4(d) <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_45729.pdf/$FILE/Legal%20Profession%20Uniform%20Conduct%20(Barristers)%20Rules%202015%20-%20%5B00-a0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement>. 

-> "9. Entitlement to certain titles    For the purposes of section 12 of the Uniform Law, a person listed in column 3 of an item in the Table below is entitled to take or use the title specified in column 2 of that item in the circumstances specified in column 4 of that item.     Barrister and solicitor, solicitor and barrister, solicitor, attorney, proctor ... When the Australian legal practitioner holds an Australian practising certificate, other than an Australian practising certificate authorising the practitioner to engage in legal practice as or in the manner of a barrister only         Barrister ... When the Australian legal practitioner holds an Australian practising certificate granted in a fused jurisdiction, or an Australian practising certificate granted in a non-fused jurisdiction that authorises the practitioner to engage in legal practice as or in the manner of a barrister only": Legal Professional Uniform General Rules 2015 (WA) r 9 <https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_45732.pdf/$FILE/Legal%20Profession%20Uniform%20General%20Rules%202015%20-%20%5B00-a0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement>. 

> *** See, TTMRA decisions, particularly, Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association [2024] AATA 497: "... The Occupation of a Barrister in NSW, Victoria and WA The regulation of the legal profession in New South Wales is governed by uniform legislation and rules which includes the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 No 16 [NSW] (the Application Act), the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) No 16a of 2014 [NSW] (the Uniform Law) and the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 [NSW] (Bar Rules).  Victoria and WA have adopted legislation and rules in the same form as New South Wales. The objects of the Bar Rules include to “act independently”.[67]  Rules 11 to 16 of the Bar Rules set out the work of a barrister.  The work of a barrister set out in rule 11 includes appearing as an advocate, giving legal advice and such other work as is from time to time commonly carried out by barristers.  Rule 13 of the Bar Rules sets out certain conduct that a barrister must not engage in.  Rule 12 of the Bar Rules provides: A barrister must be a sole practitioner, and must not: (a)          practise in partnership with any person, (b)          practise as the employer of any legal practitioner who acts as a legal practitioner in the course of that employment, (c)          practise as the employee of any person, (d)          be a director of an incorporated legal practice, or (e)          practice by or through an unincorporated legal practice. ... The Occupation of a Barrister in the ACT Mr Marcus Hassell is a barrister in the ACT and President of the ACT Bar Council who swore an affidavit on behalf of the ACT Bar Council.[68] Mr Hassell deposed to the regulatory scheme for the regulation of lawyers in the ACT under the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT); the Legal Profession (Barristers) Rules 2021 (ACT); and the Legal Profession Regulation 2007 (ACT). In this section of our reasons, we have adopted much of the summary of the regulatory scheme provided by Mr Hassell, noting that his evidence was not challenged in cross examination. [68] Exhibit 18. Section 81 of the ACT Barristers Rules provides as follows: A barrister must be a sole practitioner, and must not practice: (a)          in partnership with any person; (b)          as the employer of any legal practitioner who acts as a legal practitioner in the course of that employment; or (c)          as the employee of any person. The combined effect of the ACT Barristers Rules and the ACT Legal Profession Act includes that:[69] (a)          a person who holds a practising certificate as a barrister of any kind must only engage in “barristers work”; (b)          any barrister at the “independent bar” in the ACT “must” be a sole practitioner and “must not” practise in partnership with or as the employee of any person, and must not be the “employer” of any other legal practitioner. [69] Ibid, [6]. In the ACT, a legal practitioner cannot be issued with a barrister’s practising certificate which entitles them to practise as an “employed barrister”, except in limited circumstances for those persons who are government lawyers.[70] [70] Ibid, [6(c)]. ... The applicant contends that equivalency could be achieved by imposing a requirement of supervision on him as a barrister in the Australian jurisdictions. The respondents contend that under their respective legislative schemes there is no scope for the imposition of conditions that the applicant conduct his practice as a supervisee or employee of another barrister. It is our view that equivalence cannot be achieved by imposing conditions. It is a fundamental requirement of the legislative schemes regulating barristers that they are independent sole practitioners who do not act under supervision and are prohibited from being an employee.". --- 

-> ** this would likely exclude employed 'Barrister and Solicitors' (cf Barrister sole), and those Australian Legal Practitioners under supervision conditions and non-Principal conditions (eg employee), from the definition of 'Barrister' under State law in NSW, Vic, WA and ACT (and likely also Qld). 

-> Question, for the purposes of Migration Regulations, whether a person is or is eligible to practice as a Barrister, having regard to the person's academic and practical legal training qualifications, and any further education and vocational training to practice or carry out the occupation of a Barrister (and whether any statutory schemes attenuate the assessment of whether a person may practice in that occupation having regard to their experience and skill). 

> Advocates: "... What these considerations, and the other historical matters described above, reveal is that attention must be directed to the nature of the role which an advocate (whether barrister, solicitor or both barrister and solicitor) plays in the judicial system. ...": D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12, [21] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ). 

> see provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893-2003 (WA) s 3: "“practitioner” shall mean a person admitted and entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, for the purposes of Part IV includes a person who is entitled by virtue of a law of the Commonwealth to perform in Western Australia the functions of a barrister or solicitor, for the purposes of Part V includes a firm of practitioners of which the person is a member and for the purposes of Part IV and Part VA includes a person who has been a practitioner; ..." 

> see also, "10 Although these comments were made with reference to a barrister practising in New South Wales, where the profession is divided into barristers and solicitors, the comments apply in this State to any person who has been admitted as a barrister and solicitor of this Court. In particular, they apply to the conduct of a practitioner in carrying out the work of a solicitor as distinct from a barrister. That was the kind of work being undertaken in the present case.": Re Fatharly and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 [1999] WASCA 163. 

> admission of a Victorian barrister and solicitor: Kahn v Board of Examiners [1939] 62 CLR 422. 

> noting the decision in Little [2024] AATA 497 above, query whether admission as a lawyer in the LPUL states would entitle as person to carry out the work of a Barrister, noting the nomenclature in the past was 'barrister and solicitor', and noting that the ANSZCO criteria is predicated on the ability to carry out the occupation, not whether a person is entitled to carry out the occupation of Barrister-?sole.


[A.2] Academic and Practical Requirements

JD, Austudy

PLT

> second major qualification?: "38. In Xie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 230 (9 March 2000) Weinberg J considered the position of an adult child undertaking a second major course of study, and stated: [The delegate's] finding that the applicant did not act out of necessity ("real need") in undertaking a second major course of study was a finding of fact which, it seems to me, was open to her. It was, in any event, a finding of fact which, in my view, is not properly open to challenge before me. It is obvious that a rigid application of a "real need" test when determining dependence in the context of an adult child who is a student is capable of producing various anomalies. In one sense, it is always matter of "choice" as to whether or not a young person who has finished his or her schooling goes on to further studies rather than seeking out such employment as is available. However, the PAM 3 Guidelines contemplate that there may still be "dependence" in such circumstances provided that the young person is working towards his or her first major qualification. The policy underlying the Guidelines is presumably that young persons should be encouraged to continue their studies beyond normal school leaving age but, having acquired a first major qualification, there is no "real need" to pursue any additional qualification thereafter. The distinction between a person who is still working towards a first major qualification and a person who considers it necessary or desirable to pursue a further course of studies is, of course, one grounded in policy, and not in logic. There is nothing in the language of reg 1.03 which provides any direct warrant for such a distinction. The PAM 3 Guideline is difficult to apply in practice, given the myriad of meanings which may attach to the concept of a "first major qualification". Is a professional practice course undertaken by a  law graduate  as a prerequisite to admission part of that "first major qualification", or is it a second course of study? Is a Diploma of Education undertaken after a Bachelor of Arts degree sufficiently linked to that degree to make it part of a "first major qualification", or is it separate and distinct, transferring the student undertaking that course instantly into non-dependent status? If I were of the view that [the delegate] had rejected the applicant's claim for a Subclass 450 visa automatically, simply because he had enrolled in a second course of study, I would not hesitate to set aside her decision. That would be to elevate a policy which is itself difficult to comprehend into an inflexible and binding vehicle governing the interpretation of reg 1.03. However, I do not interpret her reasons for decision in that way. In my view her approach was neither so simplistic, nor so rigid. The true basis of her decision was that the applicant had made a free and informed choice to remain financially dependent upon his father. That finding of choice led her to conclude that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the necessity implicit in dependence, and led her, therefore, to reject his claim.": Lorenzo, Rosario [2002] MRTA 6871 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2002/6871.html>; see also, Soni, Vinay [2003] MRTA 179. 

> See also, TEQSA FOI log, October 2025 <https://www.teqsa.gov.au/about-us/reporting-and-accountability/freedom-information-and-disclosure-log>, archived at <https://archive.is/IC3pf>. 

> CRICOS Register: <https://cricos.education.gov.au/Course/CourseDetails.aspx?CourseId=69734> and <https://cricos.education.gov.au/Course/CourseDetails.aspx?CourseId=95615>. 


[A.3] 189 v 190 - General Framework

> See also, "31. Having regard to ANZSCO, it appears to the Tribunal that her position at Opal Specialist Aged Care aligns to the occupations under Unit Group 4233 ‘Nursing Support and Personal Care Workers’ specifically the occupation of ‘Personal Care Assistant’. The Tribunal notes its view is supported by the Australian College of Nursing (ACN) who defines an assistant in nursing as a “health care worker who supports the delivery of nursing care by assisting people with personal care and activities of daily living. Similar titles may include but are not limited to “Aged Care Worker (ACW), Personal Care Assistant (PCA), Care Support Employee (CSA) and Health Services Assistant”.[1] The Tribunal notes that certain other occupations, such as community worker, are listed in the instrument but in the Short-term Skilled occupation list which means it does not meet the definition of “skilled occupation”. The occupation of assistant in nursing (however titled) are not specified in Schedule 1 of the applicable instrument and are therefore not “skilled occupations” as defined.": Baguio (Migration) [2023] AATA 921.

> "22. The tribunal accepts that the applicant has worked as a registered nurse since September 2013. However, it was pointed out to her that she had not worked in her nominated occupation for 12 months by the time she was invited to apply for the visa in January 2014, and was not entitled to any  points  on that basis. She conceded she had not worked as a registered nurse for 12 months at the time of the invitation. 23. The tribunal also accepts that she had worked as a personal care assistant since 2010. She was taken through the entirety of Schedule 1 of IMMI 14/049 during the hearing where it was shown to her that that occupation (Personal Care Assistant ANZSCO 423313) did not appear in Schedule 1 and was therefore not a skilled occupation in relation to her. 24. She could not, when shown the Schedule, and the tribunal cannot now, identify another occupation in Schedule 1 of IMMI 14/049 that corresponds to the occupation she describes in her resume as ‘personal care assistant’ which she said involved performing similar duties to that of a nurse, but without administering medication. The tribunal finds that the various occupations she performed from 2010, before working as a registered nurse in September 2013, were those of a Personal Care Assistant ANZSCO 423313. 25. She conceded Personal Care Assistant was not a skilled occupation in relation to her and that she could not rely on her  employment  as a Personal Care Assistant to qualify for  points  under this item. This is so, even if Personal Care Assistant is an occupation closely related to Registered Nurses nec.": 1412916 [2014] MRTA 2794 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2014/2794.html>. 

> "22. The applicant claims that the occupations are skilled occupations as he needed to have engineering qualifications to teach other students. This does not establish that the applicant was performing a skilled occupation. As stated above, University Lecturer (ANZSCO 2421-11) nor University Tutor (ANZSCO 2421-13) are not skilled occupations as specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing. 23. The representative has referred the Tribunal to Departmental Policy which states that a closely related skilled occupation also included occupations on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List (CSOL). In this instance, the CSOL in Column A of Schedule 2 to the Instrument includes University Lecturer and University Tutor. The Tribunal does not agree with this interpretation and considers that the Department’s Policy goes beyond the scope of the legislation and is inconsistent with the legislation. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Instrument clearly state that the CSOL only applies in relation to a person nominated by a State or Territory government agency; for the purposes of r.5.19(4)(i)(A) and r.186.234(2)(a) (Direct Entry Employer Nomination Scheme). None of those circumstances apply in this case. 24. For these reasons the Tribunal finds that the occupations of University Tutor and University Lecturer are not ‘skilled occupations’ as defined in r.1.15I(1). Therefore it is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether they are closely related to the nominated skilled occupation.": 1415235 [2014] MRTA 2906 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2014/2906.html>. -- Chalise MRTA case. 

> occupations in same ANZSCO unit group (PAM3), 

> occupations in the same ANZSCO minor group: Anureet [2023] AATA 3790, [38]-[39]; Kumar [2020] AATA 5770, [61]-[62].

> comparison of tasks and duties: Farooq (Migration) [2022] AATA 2930.

> Minor difference in skill level, overlapping duties, Enrolled Nurse vis-a-vis Registered Nurse: "15. The applicant’s full-time experience as an Enrolled Nurse at Top End Medical is expressly within her nominated occupation and the Tribunal accepts five months of experience. 16. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s experience as a Personal Care Assistant, particularly with a Medication Administration endorsement, is a closely related skilled occupation to that of an Enrolled Nurse. The Tribunal has done so considering the tasks enumerated in the ANZSCO, and the applicant’s actual tasks listed in her curriculum vitae. 17. The Tribunal takes note of the supervision and administration of medication, and substantial care planning tasks, undertaken as a Personal Care Assistant. On balance, and despite the minor difference in Skill Level, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s actual experience of 17 months as a Personal Care Assistant is sufficiently closely related to that of an Enrolled Nurse for the purposes of  Part 6D.4.  Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts 24 months of Australian  employment  experience. 18. The Tribunal notes that evidence before it is imprecise as to the exact hours worked by the applicant in her roles as a Personal Care Assistant. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that she was remunerated for a least 20 hours a week for at least 12 months of her Australian  employment  experience: reg 2.26AC(6). The Tribunal is also satisfied as to the regularity of the applicant’s visa conditions whilst so doing: reg 2.27C.": Rai (Migration) [2022] AATA 101.

> Computer Networks and System Engineer v CS&S Support: not closely related - affirmed: Mohammed v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 514.

> ** "15. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Dhillon [2014] FCAFC 157; (2014) 227 FCR 525 (“Dhillon”), the Full Court said of the phrase “closely related”: The words “closely related” are not specifically defined in the Regulations or the relevant statutes but require, and call attention to, the connection between two things. The task to be undertaken to determine whether a qualification is “closely related” to a nominated occupation does not require the finding of an exact  correspondence  between the two but it does require “that the whole of the qualification must be compared with the whole of the occupation to determine whether the necessary close relationship exists”: Constantino v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1301, [26]. 16. What is meant by “closely related” is a matter of fact for the Tribunal to determine. It requires an evaluative task and the Tribunal has a “wide scope” to determine if the relevant qualification is “closely related” to the nominated occupation: Singh v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCA 1108 at [34].": Bhaskar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 320.

> "28. In Prasad v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 591 at [4] Logan J noted that the relevant Department’s “Procedures Advice Manual” provided: The ‘closely related’ requirement is to ensure that applicants have qualifications compatible with their nominated skilled occupation. Under policy, the critical factor in determining whether a qualification is closely related to the nominated skilled occupation is whether the skill set/s underpinning the qualifications/s are complimentary [sic] and can be used in the nominated occupation, in terms of both subject matter and the level at which those skills were obtained. (Emphasis in original.) His Honour said (at [24]): “Closely related” certainly does not require an exact correspondence. As used adverbially, closely imports a meaning of “near” in the present context. “Related” requires a relevant relationship between the nominated course of study and the nominated occupation. The construction promoted by the Minister in his manual, although not in this court on appeal, is a more remote relationship than that specified in the regulation. 29. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Dhillon [2014] FCAFC 157 at [20] (Allsop CJ, Murphy and Pagone JJ) the Full Court said: The words “closely related” are not specifically defined in the Regulations or the relevant statutes but require, and call attention to, the connection between two things. The task to be undertaken to determine whether a qualification is “closely related” to a nominated occupation does not require the finding of an exact correspondence between the two but it does require “that the whole of the qualification must be compared with the whole of the occupation to determine whether the necessary close relationship exists”: Constantino v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1301, [26].": Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1108.

> "22. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s argument that, by reference to ANZSCO, the occupation of ICT Business Analyst involves more of the management tasks in addition to the tasks related to the ICT. The decision records that the applicant stated that his qualification is compatible with the nominated skilled occupation, and the skills set underpinning the qualifications is complementary and can be used in the nominated occupation. The Tribunal accepted that that was the case, but formed the view that this went no further than establishing the usefulness or the relevance of one to the other. The Tribunal recorded that the legislation requires something more. 23. The Tribunal recorded it needs to be more than complementary or useful, and stated with reference to the Full Court decision in Dhillon that it needs to be closely related. The Tribunal further noted that for a qualification to be closely related to an occupation, the relationship between the skills gained in the qualification and the occupation must be more than merely complementary. It is not sufficient that the qualification has a broader relevance to the occupation. ... 44. The applicant argued before the Tribunal that the occupation of ICT Business Analyst involves more of the management tasks in addition to the tasks related to the ICT. The applicant referred the Tribunal to different subjects which he claimed help him to analyse business and finance needs and explained how the different subjects helped in his current job. The Tribunal noted that the applicant argued that the Bachelor of IT was a theoretical course related to IT but he needed more commercial knowledge which he did not acquire as part of his Bachelor course. The Graduate Diploma was a more analytical and commercial base course that gave him that knowledge. 45. As I indicated at the outset, this review can be disposed of in similar terms to that in Talha. If one looks at the learning outcomes from the individual subjects of the applicant’s Graduate Diploma in Business, it is the case that information in the higher groupings of the ANZSCO Code may be considered specifically relevant to the applicant’s nominated occupation such that the necessary close relationship could be made out. 46. The Tribunal, by failing to apply all of the relevant aspects of the ANZSCO Code, had regard to too narrow a description of the relevant tasks identified in the ANZSCO Code relating to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation.": Bhaskar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 320.

> "6. The applicant also provided a written submission to the Tribunal. In addressing the issue of whether the applicant’s qualifications were closely related to his nominated skilled occupation, it was noted the term “closely related” is not defined in legislation. It was argued the term requires and calls attention to the connection between two things. It was acknowledged that although the words “closely related” do not require an exact correspondence, the relationship must be more than merely complementary. The Tribunal was referred to the decisions in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Dhillon (2014) 227 FCR 525; [2014] FCAFC 157 at [20] and Talha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 235 FCR 100; [2015] FCAFC 115 at [56], per Griffiths, Mortimer and Beach JJ. ... 26. Clause 485.222 was also required to be met. It relevantly requires that each diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement “is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation” (emphasis added). 27. In Dhillon, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the “closely related requirement” in the context of the analogous criteria for a Subclass 886 visa. In that case, the visa applicant relied upon three qualifications to meet the Australian study requirement with the Full Court noting at [19] those qualifications “would not be sufficient” for the visa application “unless they were all closely related... to his nominated skilled occupation of pastry cook” (emphasis added). The Full Court observed at [20] the words “closely related” were not defined in the Regulations or Act “but require, and call attention to, the connection between two things”. The task of evaluating whether a qualification meets the description of being “closely related” to the nominated occupation “does not require the finding of an exact correspondence between the two but does require ‘that the whole of the qualification must be compared with the whole of the occupation to determine whether the necessary close relationship exists’”. 28. The Tribunal in Dhillon had informed itself about the nature of the nominated skilled occupation by considering the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) (the predecessor to the ANZSCO Code) and compared that with the course content submitted for the units undertaken by the visa applicant in the courses relied upon. The Full Court approved of that approach. It also held that the Tribunal did not ask itself an incorrect question when it considered the “closely related” requirement required that the relationship between the skills gained in the qualification be more than merely complementary to the occupation or that they could be used in that occupation: at [20]. 29. In Talha, the Full Court of the Federal Court described the relevant features of the ANZSCO Code as follows: ...The ANZSCO Code replaced the previous ASCO directory. All occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets which are undertaken for pay or profit, including jobs occupied by people working for themselves, are classified in the ANZSCO Code. The introductory section of the ANZSCO Code explains the concept of “a job” as meaning: ...a set of tasks designed to be performed by one person for an employer (including self-employment) in return for payment or profit. Individual persons are classified by occupation through their relationship to a past, present or future job. “Occupation” is defined in the ANZSCO Code as “a set of jobs that require the performance of similar or identical sets of tasks”. The introductory section of the ANZSCO Code also explains how occupations are classified. Occupations are classified according to their attributes and are grouped on the basis of their similarity into successively broader categories for statistical and other types of analysis. The occupations are then organised or classified into progressively larger groups on the basis of their similarities in terms of both skill level and skill specialisation. Details of the various hierarchies or groups are provided. “Occupation” is the most detailed level of classification. Occupations are distinguished from other occupations in the same unit group on the basis of detailed skill specialisation. The notes explain that the classification of occupations is done according to two criteria, namely skill level and skill specialisation. “Skill level” is defined as a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in the particular occupation and is measured operationally by the level or amount of formal education and training, the amount of previous experience in a related occupation, and the amount of on-the-job training which is required competently to perform a set of tasks required for the occupation. Occupations are divided into five different skill levels. The highest skill level is Skill Level 1, which is defined as a level of skill commensurate with a bachelor degree or higher qualification, however, at least five years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification. The concept of “skill specialisation” is defined in the ANZSCO Code as a function of: field of knowledge required; tools and equipment used; materials worked on; and goods or services produced or provided. It is important to understand the structure of the ANZSCO Code. It is divided into five “hierarchical levels”. Jobs are described at the most detailed level of classification as “occupations”. “Occupations” are then grouped together at a higher level of granularity to form “unit groups”, which in turn are grouped into “minor groups”. Minor groups are then aggregated to form “sub-major groups”, which in turn are aggregated at the highest level of granularity to form “major groups”. Significantly, in many cases, differing tasks are described at various levels of the hierarchy. It should also be noted that the introductory section of the ANZSCO Code contains the following material as to its purposes: “This publication is a reference document intended to provide a detailed account of the content and structure of ANZSCO and to assist the interpretation of statistics classified to it. It is not intended as a means of assigning information about particular jobs to ANZSCO classes. Care needs to be taken when assigning information about particular jobs to ANZSCO classes because the same job titles can be used in different industries to describe different occupations (e.g. business analyst). Additionally, the titles used in ANZSCO are not an exhaustive list of all titles used by people to describe an occupation (e.g. brickie).” 30. The Full Court in Talha held it was “ultimately a matter for the primary decision-maker and, on a statutory review, the Tribunal, to decide whether” a visa applicant’s “studies are ‘closely related’ to [their] nominated skilled occupation”. The Full Court, however, further held the necessary evaluative exercise required that the whole of an applicant’s studies be compared with the whole of the nominated occupation: at [53]. The whole of a nominated occupation may require that regard be had to information in higher groupings which is relevant to particular occupations as set out in the ANZSCO Code: see [55]-[61]. 31. In Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 203, Derrington J held at [25] that when undertaking the task of comparing a course of study and the nominated occupation for the purpose of identifying whether they are “closely related”: the nature of the nominated occupation is to be determined by reference to the [ANSZCO Code], which needs to read as a whole and with a view to identifying and applying information which is relevant to an understanding of the whole of the nominated occupation.... it is not appropriate to rely upon the applicant’s view or description of what the occupation entails or the applicant’s view of the degree of any relevant connection.": Mansha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 57.

> FOI Request FA 22/12/01068 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2023/fa-221201068-document-released.PDF>. 

> Freedom of Information Request FA 22/11/00892 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2022/fa-221100892-document-released.PDF> 

> FOI Request FA 22-09-01227 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2022/fa-220901227-document-released.PDF> 

> FOI Request FA 22/08/00748 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2022/fa-220800748-document-released.PDF>. 

> Skilled Independent Visas - Policy intent - SkillSelect Invitation Rounds: "Skilled migrants make a significant positive impact to Australia's economy. The points tested visa programs, subject to planning levels under the permanent Migration program, are effective in securing migrants with the right skills to address shortages and prepare for our future capability needs. Migrants arriving on a Skilled Independent (subclass 189) visa are invited by the Commonwealth, and are the largest per capita contributors to GDP1, with the highest participation rate2 amongst skilled visa programs. ... The points test assesses prospective migrants on a set of human capital characteristics, including education, age, English language ability and work experience. These are indicators of long-term success, labour market adaptability, and lifetime net fiscal contribution and economic impact. The platform where Expressions of Interest (EOls) are submitted, SkillSelect, ranks applicants on their points test score. This ranking is used to guide who the Department issues an invitation to apply for a subclass 189 visa, and the Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) (Family Sponsored) (subclass 491) visa. Occupation has a strong effect on lifetime earnings, and has a strong association with particular skills, capabilities and education levels. A considered approach to occupation-based selection in invitation rounds is required to capitalise on such opportunities. During the pandemic, the Department departed from its established process for managing invitation rounds in order to support economic recovery by targeting high priority occupations in critical sectors (healthcare and teaching). There is now an opportunity to design a new process and prioritisation model that is evidence-based, agile, transparent and accountable. ...": DHA, FOI No. FA 25/07/00572, 1 October 2025 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2025/fa-250700572-document-released.PDF>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251101054138/https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2025/fa-250700572-document-released.PDF>. 

> "7. The applicant was invited to apply for a Skilled – Independent (points-tested) (Subclass 189) visa (the visa) on 18 April 2018. He lodged the application in response to the invitation on 3 June 2018. As the name suggests, these visas are available to skilled persons who can establish their suitability for particular work in Australia using a points system. Regulation 2.26AC of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) requires that the applicant must be allocated points having regard to the attributes in sch 6D to the Regulations. Clause 189.224(2) of sch 2 to the Regulations says the applicant must be allocated the minimum number of points specified in the invitation to apply for the visa.": Alsheri v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 242.

Invitation Rounds


[B] Employment in the Skilled Occupation - Points Test - Sch 6 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

PAM3 - Points Test - Employment

> Closely related occupations: [Sch6D] Schedule 6D general points test for General Skilled Migration visas mentioned in subregulation 2.26AC(1), 9 September 2025: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/09-09-2025/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100252.aspx> -- "... 10.5 Closely related occupations    Applicants can claim points for employment in their nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation in the 10 years immediately preceding the date of the invitation to apply for the visa. Although skilled employment experience within the 10 years immediately before the time of invitation to apply for the visa, would generally involve work in the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation, it is also policy to award points to applicants if their career has advanced, or the occupation has evolved in the relevant period. In these circumstances, to be awarded points, the claimed employment will need to be in a skilled occupation that is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. Under ANZSCO, occupations are grouped together to form “unit groups”. Generally, all unit groups are at one skill level. Skill level is defined as a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in a particular occupation, and is generally measured by the required level or amount of formal education and training, previous experience in a related occupation, or on the job training. Under policy, closely related skilled occupations are those occupations that fall within one unit group classified under ANZSCO. For example, if an applicant’s nominated occupation is Accountant (General) (221111) and the applicant has provided evidence of skilled employment in the occupations of Management Accountant (221112) and Taxation Accountant (221113), decision makers should consider these periods of employment as closely related for the purpose of awarding points. For the purpose of awarding points, an applicant’s skilled employment experience can be in their nominated occupation or any closely related skilled occupation that appears on the skilled occupation list/s applicable to the visa subclass for which they have applied, see regulation 1.15I.    10.6 If careers have advanced over the 10 years prior to invitation   Career advancement would usually take the form of promotion to a senior role or higher level that relates to a field of expertise and incorporates greater responsibility. For example, it is possible that over a 10-year period an accountant or engineer could advance in their career to a Chief Accountant or Chief Engineer, or a Chief Executive Officer. This type of career advancement may occur outside of the four-digit ANZSCO unit group but can be considered an exception to the policy requirement that closely related occupations be in the same ANZSCO unit group if it follows a well-established path for career advancement. Whilst most occupations within the 10-year period would, in most instances, be covered by the three-digit ANZSCO Minor group code. There may be reasonable instances outside this, for example, a Geologist could transition to a University Lecturer and use their geology experience as a Lecturer. Exceptions would also likely be seen with applicants who claim to be in managerial positions, which would fall within the Major group. ..."

> [Sch6D] General points test for General Skilled Migration visas mentioned in subregulation 2.26AC(1), 18 August 2019 (July 2014): text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2019/18-08-2019/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100252.aspx> -- "... Because the instruction has not been owner-reviewed/updated since July 2014, the instruction is otherwise likely to be incomplete, inaccurate and/or out-of-date. ... [EMPLOYMENT] When can employment be considered skilled For employment to be awarded points under Schedule 6D, it should meet the following standards: had been undertaken at the required standard after the applicant met the entry level requirements as set by the relevant assessing authority for that occupation (that is, completed a sufficient level of study and or amount of on-the-job training and or post-qualification work experience and or registration requirement) and involve duties at the level of depth and complexity expected in Australia. If the relevant assessing authority has not provided an opinion on skilled employment and there are no standards set by the relevant assessing authority available in the public domain, decision makers should refer to guidance in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) when assessing the applicants’ skilled employment claims. When is an applicant skilled An applicant is considered skilled for the purpose of obtaining skilled employment points from the date the relevant assessing authority assessed them as suitable in their nominated skilled occupation: If a skills assessment provides a date at which the assessing authority is of the view that the applicant became suitably skilled for awarding employment points, the department will consider only employment undertaken from that date as meeting the skilled employment experience criteria in Schedule 6D. For example, if an applicant has obtained a skilled employment opinion from Australian Computing Society (ACS), they should record in SkillSelect the periods of employment the ACS has determined are at the skilled level and eligible for being awarded points. The date on which an applicant becomes suitably skilled for employment experience points may be different from the date on which a relevant assessing authority assesses the person as suitable. For example, a relevant assessing authority may issue a suitable skills assessment on the basis of attainment of a tertiary qualification but may require a period of post qualification work experience before considering an applicant as suitably skilled for the purpose of employment points. If the applicant has made claims of skilled employment periods that are not considered by the assessing authority on the skills assessment, the department may refer to publicly available information set by the relevant assessing authority or ANZSCO in order to make a full assessment of the claims. This situation might arise if an applicant is claiming skills over a ten year period but the skills assessment states that it only assesses claims of work experience undertaken in the 5 years immediately prior to skills assessment. ... ... Closely related occupations If occupations have evolved or careers have advanced over the 10 years prior to invitation Applicants can claim points for up to ten years of skilled employment experience in the relevant period. Although skilled employment experience within the 10 years immediately before the time of invitation to apply for the visa may primarily involve work in the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation, it is also policy to award points to applicants if their career has advanced or the occupation has evolved in the relevant period. In these circumstances, to be awarded points, the claimed employment will need to be related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation, and at the skill level of the applicant’s nominated occupation. Under policy, closely related occupations are those occupations that fall within one unit group classified under ANZSCO. Under ANZSCO, occupations are grouped together to form “unit groups”. Generally, all unit groups are at one skill level. Skill level is defined as a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in a particular occupation, and is generally measured by the level or amount of formal education and training, previous experience in a related occupation or on the job training. For example, if an applicant’s nominated occupation is Accountant (General) and the applicant has provided evidence of skilled employment in the occupations of Management Accountant (221112) and Taxation Accountant (221113), decision makers should consider these periods of employment as closely related for the purpose of awarding points. For the purpose of awarding points, an applicant’s skilled employment experience can be in the nominated occupation or any closely related skilled occupation and is not limited to an occupation on the SOL. It can also include occupations on the CSOL. As the points test recognises extensive skilled employment as an important attribute for achieving good labour market outcomes, the policy intention is to ensure an applicant is not disadvantaged by limiting skilled employment experience to an occupation on the SOL. Career advancement would usually take the form of promotion to a senior role or higher level that relates to a field of expertise and incorporates greater responsibility. For example, it is possible that over a 10 year period an accountant or engineer could advance in their career to a chief accountant or chief engineer, or a chief executive officer. This type of career advancement may occur outside of the four digit ANZSCO unit group but can be considered an exception to the policy requirement that closely related occupations be in the same ANZSCO unit group if it follows a well-established path for career advancement."

> [Sch2Visa189] Subclass 189 (Skilled – Independent) visa, 9 September 2025: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/09-09-2025/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100151.aspx>. 

> [Sch2Visa190] Subclass 190 (Skilled Nominated) Visa, 9 September 2025: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/09-09-2025/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100152.aspx>. 

> [Sch2Visa485] Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa, 26 February 2021: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2020/26-02-2021/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100180.aspx> -- "... 3.8.2. ... Note: A Master Degree (Extended) qualification generally has the title “Master of…”. The following exceptions apply: the use of the title “Juris Doctor” is permitted for a Master Degree (Extended) for legal practice; the use of the title “Doctor of ...” is permitted for a Master Degree (Extended) for five professions: medical practice; physiotherapy; dentistry; optometry and veterinary practice. Qualifications in these categories must not be confused with Level 10 of the AQF “Doctoral Degree”."

> [Sch2Visa485] Sch2Visa 485 – Temporary Graduate visa, 1 January 2021: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2020/01-01-2021/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100180.aspx>. -- "... Professional membership or registration is not a skills assessment   Evidence of membership of an Australian professional society - for example, membership of the Australian Institute of Management - is not an assessment by a relevant assessing authority of the skills of an applicant for a nominated occupation and does not satisfy 485.224. However, if the nominated occupation is Solicitor, Barrister or General Medical Practitioner the applicant will only be able to practice in that nominated occupation after they have obtained a provisional registration or State Board registration. Therefore provisional registration for the nominated occupations of Solicitor, Barrister & General Medical Practitioner will be acceptable for the purposes of meeting the skills assessment requirement in 485.224.".

> [Sch2Visa482] Temporary Skill Shortage visa (subclass 482) – visa applications, 1 July 2025: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/01-07-2025/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100179-5.aspx>: "3.4.3.4. Providing evidence of skills, qualifications and employment background   As noted above, some TSS visa applicants are required to commence a skills assessment prior to lodging their application as outlined at section 3.2.7 Mandatory skills assessments. Where this applies, evidence of successful completion of such an assessment should be requested where not already provided at time of application. Where a mandatory skills assessment is not required, decision makers need to decide whether: they are satisfied that subclause 482.212(3) is met based on information provided with the visa application – e.g. the visa applicant is a lawyer and has provided academic transcripts from their law degree, evidence of completing required practical professional training, a comprehensive CV, and work references outlining previous work experience; or additional information needs to be requested – e.g. ANZSCO requires the visa applicant to have educational qualifications plus work experience, however, the CV provided does not clearly outline what experience the visa applicant has, and work references would assist the delegate to assess whether subclause 482.212(3) is met; or a discretionary skills assessment should be requested."

> [Sch2Visa457] Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) – visa applications, 17 January 2018: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2018/17-01-2018/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100176.aspx> -- "4.7.6.3.  Providing evidence of skills, qualifications and employment background See section 4.7.7 Skills Assessments for advice about requesting and managing skills assessment results. Where a mandatory skills assessment is not required under policy, decision makers need to decide whether: they are satisfied that paragraph 457.223(4)(da) is met based on information provided with the visa application – for example, the visa applicant is a lawyer and has provided transcripts from their law degree as well as evidence of completing required practical professional training, a comprehensive CV and work references outlining previous work experience; or additional information needs to be requested – for example, ANZSCO requires the visa applicant to have education qualifications plus work experience, however, the CV provided does not clearly outline what experience the visa applicant has, and work references would assist the delegate to assess whether paragraph 457.223(4)(da) is met; or a discretionary skills assessment should be requested. Note: as a general principle, discretionary skills assessments should only be requested where considered absolutely necessary in consultation with 457 program management."

> Temporary Skill Shortage visa (subclass 482) – visa applications, 16 November 2019: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2019/16-11-2019/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100179-5.aspx>: "4.3.5.3 Providing evidence of skills, qualifications and employment background As noted above, some TSS visa applicants are required to commence a skills assessment prior to lodging their application as outlined at section 4.2.8 Mandatory skills assessments. Where this applies, evidence of successful completion of such an assessment should be requested where not already provided at time of application. Where a mandatory skills assessment is not required, decision-makers need to decide whether: they are satisfied that sub-clause 482.212(3) is met based on information provided with the visa application – for example, the visa applicant is a lawyer and has provided transcripts from their law degree as well as evidence of completing required practical professional training, a comprehensive CV and work references outlining previous work experience; or additional information needs to be requested – for example, ANZSCO requires the visa applicant to have educational qualifications plus work experience, however, the CV provided does not clearly outline what experience the visa applicant has, and work references would assist the delegate to assess whether sub-clause 482.212(3) is met; or a discretionary skills assessment should be requested - see section 4.3.6 Skills Assessments below. Examples of circumstances in which decision-makers may require further evidence such as formal qualifications, CV, employment references or a skills assessment include: where concerns exist about the validity of the documentary evidence provided; where concerns have been raised about the Registered Training Organisation (RTO) that provided the qualification, including where it is unclear on what basis a qualification awarded through Recognised Prior Learning (RPL) was obtained; if the occupation is not the same as the current one - particularly if it is in a different ANZSCO unit group; and if the visa holder’s qualifications and experience do not appear to correspond with that required. Note: Sub-clause 482.212(3) may be considered met without further investigation if it is necessary for the visa applicant to hold registration, licensing or professional membership to perform the nominated occupation, and they provide evidence of holding this. If a former Temporary Graduate (subclass 485)( or Student (subclass 500) visa holder submits evidence of a successful Job Ready Program Final Assessment in their nominated occupation, decision-makers can consider the skills requirement met without further investigation. Australian Recognised Trades Certificates (ARTC) are issued for a specific purpose and are not acceptable to be used for migration purposes. Sport-related occupations often require high levels of personal commitment, physical fitness, sporting ability and ‘relevant experience’ in the occupation in lieu of formal qualifications. Key factors in determining if a visa applicant has the skills as a sportsperson include: an employment record as an elite full-time professional in the nominated occupation; ‘recent experience’ as a full-time elite player or coach for a substantial period under Australian standards; ‘relevant and recent experience’ that does not include experience as a trainee, apprentice or cadet and/or non-professional experience; and the nominated position does not require the nominee to supplement their sporting activities with ancillary work or income (that is, the nominee would have one position in Australia and would not work for any other employer or in any activity not approved in the nomination application). If the visa applicant has at least 3 years elite-level professional experience (in lieu of formal qualifications) in the nominated occupation, decision-makers may consider the skills requirement met without further enquiry. The elite and professional status of the visa applicant should be demonstrated by past income records. The income must be substantiated against national income levels and be the principal source of income. Visa applicants may also be asked to provide references from the relevant national administrative body of the sport in which the visa applicant is engaged, showing the skill level and income received."

> PAM3 -- Skills Assessment - Legal Practitioners, 1 March 1999: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/1994-2005/legend_1994_1999_m/legend_1999_m/legend_01_03_1999_m/legend_01_03_1999_mp/Pages/_document00000/_level%20100183/level%20200776.aspx>. -- Superseded.

-> this document refers to Articled Clerks ASCO 2605-91, which is found in the first edition of the ASCO. This occupation class is not found in the ASCO 2nd Ed, nor the ANZSCO.

-> ASCO 1st Ed <https://www.whatjobspay.com.au/doc/ASCO%20Dictionary,%20First%20Edition.pdf>. 

-> ASCO 1st ed to ASCO 2nd ed concordances tables -- ABS Cat. no. 1220.0 ANZSCO -- Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, First Edition Revision 1, Correspondence Tables -- ANZSCO First Edition Revision 1 to  ASCO  Second Edition: <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/66f306f503e529a5ca25697e0017661f/3a896b570f4d4057ca25697e0018527b!OpenDocument>. Groups 1-4 <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/66f306f503e529a5ca25697e0017661f/A51A8A07B1FE8274CA25697E0018527C?opendocument>: "2605-13 Solicitor  --  2521-13 Solicitor; 2605-91 Articled Clerk -- 2521-79p Legal Professionals nec; 2605-99 Lawyers nec -- 2521-79p Legal Professionals nec".

-> ASCO 2nd Ed -- ANZSCO correspondence / concordance tables: <https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/C535B3808974AB51CA2575DF002DA70A?opendocument>. Excel Sheet: <https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausstats.abs.gov.au%2Fausstats%2Fsubscriber.nsf%2F0%2FF30E72E1516495BDCA2575DF001C7441%2F%24File%2F12200%2520anzsco%2520first%2520edition%2520revision%25201%2520to%2520asco%2520second%2520edition%2520correspondence%2520tables.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK>, 

-> 6 Digit Level (Occupation): Table 1: "271299 Judicial and Other Legal Professionals nec 2521-79 Legal Professionals nec";  Table 2 "2521-79 Legal Professionals nec -- 271299 p Judicial and Other Legal Professionals nec"; 

-> 4 Digit Level (Unit Group): Table 3: "2712 Judicial and Other Legal Professionals 2521 p Legal Professionals; 2713 Solicitors 2521 p Legal Professionals"; Table 4: "2521 Legal Professionals 2711 Barristers; 2521 Legal Professionals 2712 p Judicial and Other Legal Professionals; 2521 Legal Professionals 2713 Solicitors"

> [Div 2.6] Div 2.6 - Prescribed qualifications - Application of points system, 9 September 2025: text. <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/09-09-2025/policy/Pages/_document00002/level%20100041.aspx> -- "the definition of employed is particularly relevant to Schedule 6D employment experience factors - see see PAM3: Sch6D - General points test for General Skilled Migration visas mentioned in subregulation 2.26AC(1) - Employment. ["Employment" was deleted from the PAM on 01/07/2014 - LEGEND note]".

> SKILLS, EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS, 2000: page 1 text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/1994-2005/legend_2000_2005_m/legend_2000_m/legend_13_04_2000_m/legend_13_04_2000_mp/Pages/_document00000/_level%20100203/level%20200942.aspx>, page 2 text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/1994-2005/legend_2000_2005_m/legend_2000_m/legend_13_04_2000_m/legend_13_04_2000_mp/Pages/_document00000/_level%20100203/_level%20200942/level%20200943.aspx>. -- "6.3      Full-time students Casual/part-time employment 6.3.1      It is possible for full-time students (e.g. the holder of a Student visa as a student) to meet the ‘employed’ definition (although not necessarily in an occupation that would meet any ‘skilled occupation’ criterion). 6.3.2      It should be noted however, that student visa conditions place strict limits on the number of hours the visa holder is allowed to work. Casual work as a tutor, researcher or lecturer is unlikely to take up a sufficient proportion of a student’s time or cover the full range of duties for that employment to have been at a ‘skilled occupation’ level (which must be at least 20 hours a week - see regulation 2.26A). However, if a student is claiming to have a usual occupation as e.g. a lecturer or tutor, officers should seek further information about the student’s employment. Pre-graduation employment 6.3.3      Part-time work experience undertaken while completing a course of study may be used in establishing whether the person has been employed for the prescribed period but, since the relevant qualification has not been completed, the work experience would generally be at the “semi-skilled” rather than the “skilled” level. 6.3.4      Take for example, a person who works in an accountancy firm during the course of their accountancy degree and, after the degree has been awarded, works as an accountant for two months before applying for a visa. The applicant’s experience as an accountant is not sufficient to satisfy the ‘skilled occupation’ criterion as an accountant. However, the applicant would still have been employed at a lower skill level i.e. an accounts clerk. Postgraduate employment 6.3.5      The question may arise as to whether work experience undertaken during postgraduate study may be regarded as employment for purposes of employment in a skilled occupation. In particular, cases may arise of students with a “recognised” degree undertaking graduate courses that are practically-oriented and require the student to work in a standard work environment on a daily basis. 6.3.6      The critical issues are whether the student was paid and whether the work experience was after completing the relevant qualification and is at the skilled level (as required by the various employment factors) and may best be illustrated by example: An applicant with a recognised degree in physiotherapy and a favourable skills assessment from AECOP is undertaking a graduate course that is practically-oriented. As the applicant has a favourable skills assessment, their graduate course work experience may be regarded as post-qualification skilled employment provided it otherwise meets the 20 hour a week requirement. .... 7.3      Employment in closely-related occupations 7.3.1      Schedule 6A item 6A41 (which applies only to item 6A11 gazetted “60 point” occupations) takes into account the applicant’s employment in their nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation. 7.3.2      Under policy, a ‘closely related occupation’ would usually be a job in the same industry and in which the occupant exercises substantially the same skills or requires the same qualifications. This term is, however, relevant only in establishing how much work experience a Schedule 6A applicant has had for Part 4. It cannot be used in assessing the applicant against the Schedule 2 employment experience criterion [136.213 or equivalent]. ... ".

> Skills Assessment - Clerk, 17 March 1995: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/1994-2005/legend_1994_1999_m/legend_1995_m/legend_17_03_1995_m/legend_17_03_1995_mp/Pages/_document00000/_level%20100155/level%20200560.aspx>: "... 3.6            Where it is clear that an applicant is working in a specialised position in an administrative environment in the public or private sector, and has acceptable formal qualifications in a specialised area, the applicant should be assessed on the basis of their specialised skill (ie against the guidelines for that occupation), eg: -      a public sector lawyer should be classified as a lawyer not an administrative officer; ..."

General Framework

> BUT NOTING this was relevant to a different statutory context of assessing usual occupation: "18. In considering an applicant's usual occupation, the Tribunal refers to relevant information contained in the second edition of the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO), which was published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1997. When using that reference material and determining an applicant's usual occupation, the Tribunal is mindful of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Zeng Guang Wang v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 30 (30 January 1998). In that case, Wilcox J held that a person's usual occupation and the requirements for that occupation is a question of fact to be determined by the delegate. The decision-maker can gain assistance from ASCO second edition but is not bound by the classifications contained in that material. Finally, when determining an applicant's usual occupation, a decision-maker should consider how the composite of an applicant's work duties, training and previous work experience would be described in Australia.": Alcordo, Nelba [2000] MRTA 4804 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2000/4804.html>. 

Lecturer of an Occupation

Graduate

When can employment be considered Skilled?

Working while studying - periods of employment while studying

Employment in the Skill Level / in the Skilled Occupation - Post Degree -- CASE LAW

'More beneficial outcome' - departmental policy in the PAM3: PAM3, Sch 6D, [10.4.1]. The following decisions are an application of that policy, which directs a decision-maker to: "if the skills assessing authority’s opinion would result in an applicant receiving less  points  than claimed in their expression of interest, decision-makers “should consider the information in ANZSCO and apply the more beneficial outcome in determining when the applicant was working at a skilled level”: Berinato (Migration) [2023] AATA 554, [43]. 

> AIN and RN, difference in skill level: Lindog (Migration) [2023] AATA 1820.

> Sch6B - General Points Test - Qualifications and points (General Skilled Migration visas), sch 6B Migration Regulations, 15 May 2013: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2006-2016/2013/legend_20130515_m/legend_15_05_2013_mp/Pages/_document00003/_level%20100270/level%20201092.aspx>: "18      The meaning of 'employed' 18.1      Defined in regulation 2.26AA The term employed is defined in regulation 2.26A(7) to mean ‘engaged in an occupation for remuneration for at least 20 hours weekly’. Note: Regulation 2.26A(6) links this definition to Schedule 6B. 18.2      Remuneration For ‘remuneration’ the policy intention is that applicants have been engaged in the occupation on a paid basis, generally at the award or market rate. Mere emotional or psychological satisfaction or the acquisition of useful, but unpaid, professional experience is not considered ‘remuneration’ for General Skilled Migration purposes. A person receiving minimal living allowances or scholarships designed to cover expenses would not generally be considered to be remunerated. This is because no financial benefit is derived. 18.3      Leave periods As work must be for remuneration, only periods of leave on full pay can be counted as time during which an applicant was ‘employed’. That means that periods of extended leave without pay (for example maternity or paternity leave) cannot be counted as a period of employment. 18.4      20 hours a week The regulation 2.26A(7) definition of employed does not require the applicant to have been in full-time work, but instead requires that the applicant has been working and has been paid for working for at least 20 hours a week. 20 hours a week means 20 hours each week - not irregular periods that average out to 20 hours a week over a year. For example student visa conditions place strict limits on how many hours the visa holder is allowed to work - see PAM3: GenGuideG - Student visas - Visa application & related procedures - Student visa conditions. Applicants who have been working in Australia 17 hours a week on a student visa while classes are in session cannot "make up" the extra 3 hours a week by working longer hours during holiday periods. Case officers should be fair and reasonable when applying this rule in relation to applicants employed on a casual basis who, because of illness or other compelling and compassionate reasons, may have fallen short of the 20 hour benchmark for one or more weeks over the relevant period. If doubts arise, applicants should be asked to provide detailed evidence of their terms of employment and payment details. 18.5      Employment must be skilled For employment to be considered ‘skilled’ it must meet two requirements: •      that it was undertaken after the applicant met the entry level requirements for that occupation (that is, completed a sufficient level of study or amount of on-the-job training) and •      that it involved duties at the level of depth and complexity expected in Australia. In assessing both factors, case officers should have regard to ANZSCO. For occupations for which ANZSCO does not provide adequate guidance, case officers should consider the requirements set by the relevant assessing authority. 18.6      When is an applicant skilled Skilled on basis of educational qualifications An applicant is taken to be capable of undertaking work at a skilled level only after they have met the entry level requirements for that occupation. If the entry level prescribed for the applicant’s nominated occupation is a certain qualification only work undertaken after the applicant has completed that qualification will be counted as skilled employment. For example to be a Systems Analyst, ANZSCO states that the entry level requirement is a bachelor's degree or a higher qualification or at least 5 years relevant experience. If an applicant had worked in a systems analyst role while completing their bachelor's degree, only the work undertaken after the academic requirements of the bachelor's degree had been met would count as skilled employment - see section 18.8 Working while studying. Skilled after on the job training The three main occupations for which on the job training can be used to obtain a suitable skills assessment are the trades, management positions and IT professionals. As these applicants do not have an identifiable date of registration or completion of their formal studies, the assessing body will normally prescribe a date as of which the applicant is assessed as meeting the Australian standard for the occupation. If this date has not been identified by the assessing authority, a case officer should have regard to ANZSCO in the first instance or where ANZSCO is silent, the guidelines used by the relevant assessing authority, to determine how long a person would need to work in that occupation before they would be considered to meet the Australian entry level requirement. 18.7      Importance of this date for visa purposes The date an applicant met the Australian entry level requirement for their occupation, as prescribed by the assessing body or determined in accordance with the guidelines above, is the date from which an applicant can acquire skilled work experience in that occupation. Until that time, the applicant is in fact learning the job, albeit while on-the-job. They cannot therefore normally be assessed as performing the job at a skilled level. For example, ANZSCO provides that in relation to Software and Applications Programmers, the entry level requirement is either a bachelor level qualification or 5 years work experience (or relevant vendor certification may substitute for the formal qualification). If an applicant applied for a GSM visa and nominated a suitable occupation from the Unit Group Software and Applications Programmers, but had no formal qualification, the case officer would, on the basis of ANZSCO, only consider work after the applicant had been working in that occupation for 5 years to be at a skilled level. This means only work undertaken after working in that occupation for 5 years would be considered towards meeting the requirements for the award of points for the Specific employment, Australian employment, Occupation in demand or the Partner skills factors. ..." -- this is the former points test PAM. 

> * “29. The delegate noted the work references provided by the applicant’s employer which confirmed that she had been employed by his company as a casual employee for 20 hours per week from 13 June 2008 as an 'Interior Design Student'. He further advised that as of 6 January 2010 she was employed fulltime as a Graduate Architect. The delegate concluded, after comparing the applicant's duty statement as a Graduate Architect with the ASCO definition for an Interior Designer, (the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation), that the occupations were not closely related. Accordingly no points were awarded in respect of the applicant’s fulltime position. In addition, as she did not complete her qualification for her nominated occupation, that is, her Bachelor of Design, until 30 November 2009, the delegate calculated her period of  skilled employment  to be less than 12 months – that is, as from 30 November 2009 to 6 January 2010. Consequently the delegate awarded no points under Part 6B.5. … 34. The Tribunal therefore finds, on the basis that the applicant completed her Bachelor of Design on 30 November 2009 and, having regard to Federal Court authority on this issue and the evidence available to it, that the applicant’s employment from 13 June 2008 to her graduation on 30 November 2009 cannot be regarded as employment in her nominated skilled (or closely related) occupation for the purposes of Part 6B.5. 35. Therefore, for the purposes of assessing whether the applicant was employed in her nominated skilled occupation or a closely related skilled occupation for a period totalling at least 12 months in the 48 months before the day on which the application was made, the only potentially relevant employment is that between 1 December 2009 and 24 May 2010, the day before her application date of 25 May 2010. 36. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, the Tribunal is satisfied that for the period of 1 December 2009 to 5 January 2010, prior to her commencing fulltime employment as a Graduate Architect, the applicant was employed in her nominated skilled occupation of Interior Designer. …”: 1302640 [2014] MRTA 682 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2014/682.html>. 

> *** "62. Federal Magistrate Burnett found that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by focusing on Mr Hossain’s tasks rather than his skills. Clause 138.216 does not specify whether, in considering whether an applicant’s occupation is a skilled one, a decision-maker is to give primary weight to the applicant’s skills, or to the tasks actually undertaken. The ASCO classifications for Bank Worker and Credit and Loans Officer contain two types of information about those occupations: “Skill Level” and “Tasks Include”. The ASCO classification for Business and Information Professionals contains information about “Skill Level” and “Occupations in this group include”, but not about tasks. 63. However, “skills” is to some extent a misnomer. The skills section of the classifications does not specify a set of skills applicants must possess in order to be able to undertake the occupation. Instead, it contains information as to the qualifications required for entry to that occupation. The introductory notes to the Second Edition of the ASCO classification system confirm that the criteria used to measure skill level are formal education and / or training, and previous experience. 64. In order to determine whether an applicant’s employment fits into a particular ASCO classification, a decision‑maker is required to consider all of the details set out in that classification. However, in making such a decision, the skills that are to be considered are those set out in the “Skill Level” section of the classification to which the applicant’s position is being compared. That is, the decision requires a consideration of whether the applicant holds the qualifications or experience prescribed for that occupation. 65. Although the Tribunal did not expressly analyse the application in terms of the “skills” criterion, it is clear from a consideration of the Tribunal’s reasons that it accepted that Mr Hossain had the relevant qualifications based on his certificates and on the VETASSESS assessment.  The Tribunal, in substance, assessed and determined the particular question of “skills” for the purposes of the ASCO classifications, in reaching its decision on the facts. It was necessary for the Tribunal also to consider the “tasks” section of the classifications, and this examination is set out in some detail (p 10).": Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kamruzzaman [2009] FCA 1562 <https://jade.io/article/122604>. 

> Roberts (Migration) [2017] AATA 1571, [23] <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/1571.html>.

> Lindog (Migration) [2023] AATA 1820, [22]. 

> Vaidya (Migration) [2017] AATA 969, [24]. 

> Salvador Longarela (Migration) [2017] AATA 433, [20]. 

> "29. It has been held that it is at least open, as a matter of law, to a decision maker applying the ASCO code when determining whether someone has a skilled occupation, to consider both the tasks listed for that occupation, and also the extent to which another classification in ASCO appears more suited to the tasks performed by the visa applicant (see Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Kamruzzaman [2009] FCA 1562 at [64] and [69]). Some occupations might need close examination of skills or tasks rather than lead statements, when the classification is made. However, in my opinion, an application of the ASCO classifications does not, in all cases, require the focusing of the assessment upon the ‘tasks’ parts of the definition. In the present case, the ‘lead statements’ provided an equally relevant, and clearer, distinction between the two occupations addressed by the delegate and the Tribunal.": Shukla v MIAC [2010] FMCA 625 <https://jade.io/article/201252>. 

Skill Level - Opinion Expressed by Skill Assessment Authority -- periods of employment -- CASE LAW

"Required" - in the context of Schedule 6 / 6D

> cf if the word "required" was in the Regulations, eg: "The Tribunal finds that "requires" as it appears in regulation 146(1) is taken to mean a minimum entry requirement to the particular occupation: see Kumar v. Immigration Review Tribunal [1992] FCA 319; (1992) 36 FCR 544. The Principal's qualification, whilst relevant to the occupation, does not meet Australian standards for the occupation. The Tribunal finds as a matter of fact that the occupation in Australia requires legal qualifications and admission as a  legal practitioner . The Principal has been assessed as not being entitled to admission as a  legal practitioner  in New South Wales. ...": Applicant: Ms Birgit Christina Onken Principal: Mr Bernhard Josef Kneis IRT Reference: N93/00710 #number 3874 [1994] IRTA 3874 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/IRTA/1994/3874.html>. 

> "Required" in the context of Schedule 6D (Points Test), see: skill section of the ANZSCO description above. -- reference to the 'skill level' section of the classification to which the applicant’s position is being compared. -- skill level section.

Hours of Work

> BUT, doctoral degree students, at the relevant times: "6. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. In addition, once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight except in certain circumstances involving specified course-related work and masters or  doctoral degree  courses. 7. The concepts of ‘fortnight’ and ‘work’ are both defined in the Regulations. ‘Fortnight’ for these purposes, means the period of 14 days commencing on a Monday:  8105 (3). ‘Work’ is defined to mean ‘an activity that, in Australia, normally attracts remuneration’: r.1.03.": TAN (Migration) [2019] AATA 1384 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2019/1384.html>. 

> From 1 July 2023: Sch 8, 8105(1) and (2A) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth): 48 hours per fortnight: "8105 (1A) Subject to subclause (1B), the holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the holder’s course of study commences. (1B) Subclause (1A) does not apply to the holder if: (a) at the time of applying for the visa, the holder held a substantive visa or a bridging visa (the previous visa); and (b) the holder was permitted to work in Australia during the period that the previous visa was in effect. (1) Subject to subclause (2), the holder must not engage in work in Australia for more than 40 hours a fortnight during any fortnight when the holder’s course of study or training is in session. (2) Subclause (1) does not apply: (a) to work that was specified as a requirement of the course when the course particulars were entered in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students; and (b) in relation to a student visa granted in relation to a masters degree by research or doctoral degree if the holder has commenced the masters degree by research or doctoral degree. (2A) If the visa held is a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, or a bridging visa granted on the basis of a valid application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, this clause applies as if the reference in subclause (1) to 40 hours were instead a reference to 48 hours.:" --- SEE: Migration Amendment (Extension of Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) Visa and Increase in Subclass 500 (Student) Visa Work Hours) Regulations 2023 (Cth). 

-> "... Subclass 500 (Student) visa The amendments to visa conditions 8104 and 8105 relate to the amount of work overseas students, and their accompanying family members, are permitted to undertake while holding a Subclass 500 (Student) visa or an associated bridging visa. Visa condition 8104 is a mandatory visa condition for applicants for Subclass 500 (Student) visas who satisfy the secondary criteria for the grant of the visa (i.e. members of the family unit of the primary visa holder). The effect of the amendment is that the family member must not engage in work for more than 48 hours per fortnight while the holder is in Australia (new subclause 8104(3A) and existing subclause 8104(1)). There is no change to the restrictions that apply to family members before the primary visa holder's course of study commences (subclauses 8104(2), 8104(2A), and 8104(2B)), and no change to the rules applying to the family members of certain masters and doctoral students (subclause 8104(3)). Visa condition 8105 is a mandatory visa condition for applicants for Subclass 500 (Student) visas who satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa (i.e. because they are enrolled in a course of study in Australia). The effect of the amendment (new subclause 8105(2A) and existing subclause 8105(1)) is that the visa holder may work for up to 48 hours per fortnight during any fortnight when the holder's course of study or training is in session. There is no change to the rules that apply to work before the holder's course of study commences (subclauses 8105(1A) and 8105(1B)), and no change to the rules affecting certain masters and doctoral students (subclause 8105(2)). The background to these changes is that the Government has relaxed enforcement of work limitations for Student visa holders, and this relaxation will end on 30 June 2023. The relaxation of enforcement of Student visa work limitations was progressively introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially introduced for supermarket workers on                 13 March 2020; then for aged care workers on 18 March 2020; and further expansions until the relaxation was applied to all Student visa holders in January 2022. This was done to allow primary and secondary Student visa holders to work over their normal limit of 40 hours per fortnight to address workforce shortages. At the Jobs and Skills Summit in September 2022, the Government announced that the relaxed enforcement will continue until 30 June 2023. After 30 June 2023, work hours for international students would be capped again. The number of hours would be subject to consultation with peak bodies across industry and education sectors, with a view to striking the right balance between work and study. In the 28 October 2022 report to the Ministers for Home Affairs and Education, the Working Group recommended increasing the cap to 48 hours per fortnight. This recommendation was supported by the Government. In an announcement on 21 February 2023, the Government clarified that the cap on work hours would again be enforced from 1 July 2023, however the period of work allowed per fortnight would be increased from 40 hours to 48 hours. The Government considers 48 hours a fortnight as an appropriate balance between work and study, acknowledging that study is the primary purpose of the Student visa. The Government also announced that Student visa holders already working in the aged care sector on 9 May 2023 can continue to work unrestricted hours in the aged care sector until   31 December 2023. This is being implemented by not enforcing the condition for those who fall within this category.": F2023L00821 Explanatory Statement <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg_es/maos485gvaiis500vwhr20232023008211257.html>. 

> "work means an activity that, in Australia, normally attracts remuneration. ": Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 1.23.

Doctoral and Masters Research Students - Holders

> PAM3: Visa 500 - Student, 2020 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2020/fa-190900112-r1-document-1-released.PDF>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250824050620/https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2020/fa-190900112-r1-document-1-released.PDF>: "4.7.3.4. Condition 8105 work limitation (primary visa holders)  About 8105   Condition 8105 restricts students to 40 hours work per fortnight while their course is  in session. They are not permitted to work until their course has commenced. When their course is not in session they may work unlimited hours. Students who have commenced a masters by research or a doctorate course may work unlimited hours after commencing their postgraduate research course.   Condition 8105 - working between course sessions   Condition 8105 states that holders are also not permitted to work more than 40 hours  a fortnight while their course of study or training in which they are enrolled is ‘in session’, with the exception of those who have commenced a masters degree by research or doctoral degree. However, this work limitation does not include work that is a registered component of  the student’s course of study or training for the award to be obtained.". 

> PAM - Sch2Visa500 - Student, 18 November 2017: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2017-2020/2017/18-11-2017/legend_current_mp/Pages/_document00003/level%20100183.aspx> --- "Condition 8105 work limitation (primary visa holders) About 8105 Condition 8105  restricts students to 40 hours work per fortnight while their course is in session. They are not permitted to work until their course has commenced. When their course is not in session they may work unlimited hours. Students who have commenced a masters by research or a doctorate course may work unlimited hours after commencing their postgraduate research course. Condition 8105 - working between course sessions Condition 8015 states that holders are also not permitted to work more than 40 hours a fortnight while their course of study or training in which they are enrolled is ‘in session’, with the exception of those who have commenced a masters degree by research or doctoral degree. However, this work limitation does not include work that is a registered component of the student’s course of study or training for the award to be obtained."

-> See also, PAM, [Sch2Visa500] Visa 500 - Student, 7 November 2025: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2021-2024/2025/07-11-2025/policy/Pages/_document00003/level%20100190.aspx>.  -- 7 Nov 2025 updated PAM.

> "Item 41 - Paragraph 8105(2)(b) of Schedule 8   This item amends paragraph 8105(2)(b) of Schedule 8 (Visa conditions) to the Migration Regulations by omitting the words "Subclass 574 (Postgraduate Research Sector) visa" and substituting "student visa granted in relation to a masters degree by research or doctoral degree". Clause 8105 specifies a condition 8105 which must be imposed on a Subclass 500 (Student) visa granted to an applicant who satisfies the primary criteria (see paragraph 500.611(1)(a), inserted by item 32 of this Schedule, above). The effect of the condition is that the visa holder is restricted to working for no more than 40 hours per fortnight, unless the visa holder is studying certain postgraduate courses. This amendment removes a reference to a Subclass 574 visa, which is repealed by item 32 of this Schedule, above, and substitutes a reference to a student visa granted in relation to certain postgraduate courses. The effect of the amendment is to continue the application of the condition, as the term student visa includes a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.": Migration Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2016 (F2016L00523) Explanatory Statement <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_reg_es/mla2016mn1r2016201600523537.html>. 

> "65. The Tribunal also put to the applicant information that condition  8105  on his Student visa restricted the number of hours he could work to 48 hours a fortnight and he had worked in excess of that. A closer scrutiny of condition  8105  indicates that this restriction does not apply to Student visas granted in relation to Master’s degrees by research or  doctoral  degrees if the holder has commenced the Master’s degree by research or  doctoral  degree. ... 84. In oral submissions to the Tribunal, the applicant’s legal representative submitted that the applicant had difficulty recalling dates and time frames and this should not reflect on his credibility. His evidence was credible. He acknowledged incidents that would affect his credibility such as not attending Church physically and this was a sign of his integrity and honesty. He has come from a Muslim family, has converted to Christianity and his family are aware of that. DFAT also stated that the risk is higher for converts particular from Islamic families and can be subject to violence. There are high levels of corruption in the Police. They are prepared to turn a blind eye when violence occurs. That would leave the applicant at risk. His ability to self-identify and self-determination is an innate quality and should not be something that he has to modify his behaviour to hide. In this day, social media is reckless. It could lead to him being identified by people who are aware in his family. This could lead to his location being given away. Condition  8105  currently allows for a student studying a Ph D by research to work more than 48 hours a fortnight. He could not guarantee that this was the case in 2016.": 2101204 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3910.

> "[ft nt 3] In accordance with cl. 010.611(4)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, when a Bridging Visa Class A is granted to the holder of a student visa at the time of application for the bridging visa, the same conditions which applied to the student visa apply to the bridging visa. granted to a person who is the holder of a student visa at the time of application for the bridging visa, the same conditions which applied to the student visa apply to the bridging visa. The Department’s records show that the only additional specific conditions imposed upon the applicant’s Subclass 010 visa were condition  8105  prohibiting work of more than 40 hours per fortnight when the applicant’s course was in session (applicable only if doing a course other than a masters by research or a doctorate course).": Ramos (Migration) [2018] AATA 3546, footnote 3. 

> "6. Did the applicant comply with condition  8105 ? Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case before the tribunal, requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight, excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement. This 40-hour restriction does not apply to section 574 visa holders who have commenced a master’s degree by research or a  doctoral  degree, which is not the case here.": Lissy (Migration) [2019] AATA 1987.

> "11. If the visa holder has engaged in work within the meaning of r.1.03, condition  8105  requires that it not be for more than 40 hours a fortnight ‘during any fortnight when the holder’s course of study or training is in session’. ‘Fortnight’ in Condition  8105  means the period of 14 days commencing on a Monday:  8105 (3). 12. However, the 40 hours a fortnight limitation in condition  8105 (1) does not apply to work that was specified as a requirement of the course when the course particulars were entered in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), or in relation to a Subclass 574 (Postgraduate Research Sector) visa if the holder has commenced the masters degree by research or  doctoral  degree:  8105 (2).": 1220121 [2013] MRTA 1458 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/1458.html>. 

> "9. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight (excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement). This 40 hour restriction does not apply to Subclass 574 visa holders who have commenced a masters degree by research, or a  doctoral  degree.": 1311060 [2013] MRTA 2938 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/2938.html>. 

> "15. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight (excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement). This 40 hour restriction does not apply to Subclass 574 visa holders who have commenced a masters degree by research, or a  doctoral  degree.": 1305000 [2014] MRTA 227 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2014/227.html>. 

> "11. However, the work limitation in condition  8105 (1) does not apply to work that was specified as a requirement of the course when the course particulars were entered in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), or in relation to a Subclass 574 (Postgraduate Research Sector) visa if the holder has commenced the masters degree by research or  doctoral  degree:  8105 (2).": 1206690 [2013] MRTA 228 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/228.html>. 

> "11. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight (excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement). This 40 hour restriction does not apply to Subclass 574 visa holders who have commenced a masters degree by research, or a  doctoral  degree.": 1313287 [2013] MRTA 2681 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/2681.html>. 

> "8. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight (excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement). This 40 hour restriction does not apply to Subclass 574 visa holders who have commenced a masters degree by research, or a  doctoral  degree.": Cheema (Migration) [2019] AATA 1354.

> "8. Condition  8105 , as it applies in this case is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires that the visa holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the course of study commences. Once the course of study has commenced, the visa holder must not engage in work for more than 40 hours a fortnight (excluding certain work that is specified as a course requirement). This 40 hour restriction does not apply to Subclass 574 visa holders who have commenced a masters degree by research, or a  doctoral  degree.": 1511402 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4068.

Job Titles

Job Descriptions

OVERLAPS - in skills and tasks in Occupations in different Major Groups and Sub-Major Groups - Overlap - key to look at duties, tasks and skill level - and match, cover, commonalities

Query whether the following are sch 6D points test cases or skills assessment

> "29. It has been held that it is at least open, as a matter of law, to a decision maker applying the ASCO code when determining whether someone has a skilled occupation, to consider both the tasks listed for that occupation, and also the extent to which another classification in ASCO appears more suited to the tasks performed by the visa applicant (see Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Kamruzzaman [2009] FCA 1562 at [64] and [69]). Some occupations might need close examination of skills or tasks rather than lead statements, when the classification is made. However, in my opinion, an application of the ASCO classifications does not, in all cases, require the focusing of the assessment upon the ‘tasks’ parts of the definition. In the present case, the ‘lead statements’ provided an equally relevant, and clearer, distinction between the two occupations addressed by the delegate and the Tribunal.": Shukla v MIAC [2010] FMCA 625 <https://jade.io/article/201252>; 

> "72. Aside from ‘School Principal’ there is also ‘Faculty Head’ and ‘Regional Education Manager’, both of which the Tribunal also does not consider are the appropriate occupations having regard to their lead statements in  ASCO . The Tribunal considers that the visa applicant’s responsibilities, as set out in the letters provided from Dr Leong and the chairman,  match  the following tasks set out under the unit group of Education Managers: coordinating the administrative and financial affairs of an educational institution; liaising with parents; identifying and addressing present and future needs for staff development and student development in non-academic areas and also supervising staff of the schools. The Tribunal thus finds that the position of CEO of SBK appears to be in the occupation of Education Manager nec.": 1205435 [2013] MRTA 730 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/730.html>. 

> PAM3 -- ASSESSMENT AGAINST 1.20G - STANDARD NOMINATIONS, 1 July 2009: text <https://legend.online.immi.gov.au/migration/2006-2016/legend_2009_m/legend_01_07_2009_m/legend_01_07_2009_mp/Pages/_document00004/_level%20100024/_level%20200261/level%20300699.aspx>. 

Time of Assessment - Time of Invitation

No discretionary factors, compassionate, compelling factors, for waiving requirements

'Qualification' - appears to not be confined to educational qualifications, but is dependent on statutory context


[B.1] Points Test - Sch 6 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - Other Matters

Regulations - Div 2.6

Partner Qualifications

English Language

Australian Study Requirement

Age

Study in Designated Regional Area - Meets also Australian Study Requirement

> "38. The Tribunal has found the applicant met the Australian study requirement. Designated regional areas for the purpose of this Part are set out in LIN 19/217, where any postcode set out in Column 3 of the table in section 6 of that instrument is said to be a designated regional area. The applicant lived in South  Perth , postcode 6151, and studied at Curtin University in  Perth  at postcode 6102. Both of these postcodes are encompassed in the list of postcodes from 6090 to 6182 appearing in Column 3 of the table in section 6. 39. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 5 points under this part.": Cui (Migration) [2023] AATA 1530.

> "46. The applicant undertook study at Curtin University in Western Australia, a campus in a designated regional area (Bentley, Western Australia 6102), and also lived in a designated regional area (Cockburn, Western Australia 6164) while undertaking the study. The study undertaken was not by way of distance education. 47. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to 5 points under this part.": Agharanya (Migration) [2022] AATA 5030.

State or Territory Nomination or Sponsorship

PIC 4020 - Incoming Passenger Cards - Occupation Claimed not matching Department Records

Character Tests and Security Assessments


[B.2] Employment in the Skilled Occupation - Points Test - Sch 6 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311): 

The Crux of the Matter: Defining and Evidencing "Skilled Employment"

An onshore Solicitor or overseas-qualified Solicitor seeking to migrate to Australia under the GSM visas schemes face a complex challenge that extends beyond a mere visa application. The process requires navigating two parallel, yet fundamentally distinct, regulatory frameworks: the system governing professional admission to the legal profession, and the criteria governing skilled migration. The former is designed to protect the public by ensuring professional competence and ethical standards, while the latter is an economic instrument designed to meet Australian labour market needs. The core of the applicant's challenge lies at the intersection of these two systems, where the definition of "skill" and the valuation of professional experience can diverge significantly.

The central challenge for a solicitor applicant is to prove that a given period of employment meets the legislative requirement of being "skilled." This involves more than simply demonstrating they were employed in a law firm; it requires proving that their duties and responsibilities were commensurate with the professional standing of an admitted solicitor as defined by the ANZSCO framework. While not settled, the MRTA (a predecessor to the AATA and ARTA) has in one decision been open to making a finding that a person had been employed, in substance, in work consistent with that of the Solicitor occupation for immigration purposes -- see [B.A] below.  

The Post-Qualification Paradigm and the "Deeming Date"

A foundational principle in Australian skilled migration is that employment can only be considered "skilled" for points purposes after an applicant has met the minimum qualifications required for that occupation. The standard approach in Australian skilled migration is that employment can only be counted for points from the date an applicant is "deemed skilled". For most professions, this date is determined by a formal skills assessing authority.   

For a solicitor, this is inextricably linked to their admission to practice. The date of admission functions as an effective "deeming date"—the point from which the Department presumes the applicant is qualified to work at a skilled level. For solicitors, the Department of Home Affairs accepts "admission to practice law in the relevant state or territory" as a suitable skills assessment. Consequently, the date of an applicant's first admission to practice may effectively become their "deeming date." (but no case law confirms this view). The default departmental position may be that any work performed before this date was not at the required skill level, as the individual was not yet legally qualified to practice as a solicitor (but no PAM3 exists to confirm). This view may be reinforced by professional bodies in other contexts; for instance, for Specialist Accreditation in NSW, the "practice of law" explicitly excludes pre-admission experience. -- "“Practice of law” does not include pre-admission experience.": <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/2025%20Specialist%20Accreditation%20-%20Guide%20to%20Application%20%26%20Assessment%20-%20FINAL.pdf>. It may be the case that only employment experience gained after this date can be counted towards points for skilled employment. Experience prior to admission, such as work as a paralegal or trainee, is not automatically considered to be at the required skill level. While the official date you are deemed skilled may be your date of admission to legal practice, it is possible to claim skilled employment points for work performed before this date. However, the burden of proof is on you to provide comprehensive evidence that your duties and responsibilities in that pre-admission role were at the skill level expected of a qualified solicitor. -- see eg, [B.C], [B.B] below. 

This paradigm (if so) creates a significant hurdle for claiming points for experience gained in roles such as a paralegal, articled clerk, or trainee solicitor, even if the work was complex and demanding. The Department's default position is that such roles are preparatory and supervised, and by definition, do not require the full suite of skills or the level of professional autonomy and responsibility of an admitted solicitor. The Law Council of Australia has been critical of this "deeming" practice by assessing authorities more broadly, arguing that it can produce anomalous results by ignoring valuable experience that predates the formal recognition of an applicant's skills. While solicitors do not use a typical SAA, the principle is directly analogous to the Department's treatment of the admission date.  -- see [B.J] below. 

New Zealand Experience (noting its different statutory criteria but reliance on and interpretation of the ANZSCO)

The search for tribunal or court decisions that directly address the specific question of whether pre-admission work experience for solicitors—or indeed for any other regulated profession—can be counted as "skilled work experience" in the context of a Skilled Migrant Category application does not yield much relevant case law.  There is no indication of a case that turns on the interpretation of "skilled experience" for a professional awaiting local registration, but SEE [B.L] below. 

Based on a strict, literal interpretation of INZ's governing instructions, the combination of the "substantially matched" ANZSCO requirement and the non-negotiable rule on occupational registration in NZ creates a formidable barrier. For INZ's purposes, the occupational title "Solicitor" is inextricably linked to the legal authority to practise law in New Zealand. Without that authority, which is conferred only through High Court admission and the issuance of a practising certificate, any prior experience, regardless of its quality, duration, or relevance in another jurisdiction, is arguably not experience as a solicitor in the context of a New Zealand job offer. The applicant may have been a highly skilled and experienced solicitor in their home country, but for the purposes of their New Zealand visa application, their status is that of an "unregistered legal professional." This interpretation effectively resets their professional clock to zero from an immigration perspective, until the moment they are fully licensed to practise in New Zealand.

In the absence of direct precedent for solicitors, a legal argument could be constructed by reasoning from analogy, examining how the NZIPT has treated the concept of "skilled work experience" in other regulated professions like medicine, engineering, or teaching. The core of such an analysis would be to determine whether the Tribunal consistently defers to the requirement of local registration as the definitive and non-negotiable marker of "skill," or whether it has shown a willingness to adopt a more substantive approach that looks at the underlying skills and competencies of the applicant, irrespective of their local licensing status.

Analogy with Medical Practitioners in the Sch 6D PAM3

The formal visa criteria published by the Department of Home Affairs—such as the points test, age limits, and basic English requirements—represent only the visible tip of the iceberg. The true, determinative requirements are the detailed, rigorous, and non-negotiable academic and professional standards set by Australia's legal admitting authorities. These can be understood as the "shadow criteria" of the migration process.

A prospective applicant might review the Home Affairs website and see a straightforward requirement for a "suitable skills assessment". They then discover this means "admission to practice" , which may still sound like a single, discrete step. However, to achieve that single step, they must successfully navigate an entirely separate and complex regulatory ecosystem governed by state-based bodies and the LACC Uniform Principles. This separate system imposes its own demanding requirements regarding specific academic subjects, competency-based practical training, and an exceptionally high standard of English proficiency. These are not explicitly listed in the Migration Regulations, yet they are absolute prerequisites to meeting the regulations.   

Consequently, the success or failure of a skilled visa application for a solicitor is effectively predetermined by the outcome of a process that occurs entirely outside the migration framework. These "shadow criteria" of the legal profession are far more challenging and ultimately more determinative than the points test or other standard migration requirements. For legal practitioners advising clients in this area, a failure to look beyond the Migration Act and Regulations to provide deep, expert guidance on this parallel journey through the legal admissions process constitutes a critical professional oversight.

In this regard, there may be an argument that Solicitors should be viewed as equally favourably as Medical Practitioners with regards to pre-admission or pre-registration (Intern) work experience for the purposes of Sch 6D criteria and points test. 

Interpreting Departmental Policy (PAM3): The Hierarchy of Evidence

Guidance on how departmental decision-makers should navigate this complex assessment is found in internal policy documents, specifically the Procedural Advice Manual (PAM3). These documents, available through Freedom of Information requests, reveal a multi-faceted assessment process that goes beyond a simple reliance on the date of admission. According to this policy, in assessing periods of skilled employment, a decision-maker should take into account: - The opinion of the relevant skills assessing authority, which for a solicitor is the evidence and date of their admission to practice; - The Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) definition for Solicitor (271311), including its descriptions of tasks, duties, and prerequisite qualifications; - Any other relevant information provided by the applicant, such as detailed employment records, position descriptions, and references.   

Most significantly, the policy contains a crucial directive to decision-makers: "If the skills assessing authority's opinion would result in the applicant being awarded fewer points than they claimed... decision makers should consider the information in ANZSCO and apply the more beneficial outcome in determining when the applicant was working at a skilled level". The inclusion of this "more beneficial outcome" directive is a formal acknowledgement by the Department that a rigid adherence to a "deeming date" may not reflect the reality of an applicant's career progression and could be legally vulnerable to challenge. It is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent appealable errors by instructing case officers to conduct a more holistic assessment. This policy creates a direct causal link between the quality of an applicant's evidence and their chance of success. It provides the legal "door" for an applicant to argue that their pre-admission experience was indeed at a skilled level, but it is the applicant's evidence that serves as the "key" to opening it.

While the admission date is the standard benchmark, it is not an absolute rule. Departmental policy directs decision-makers to consider other factors, including the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and detailed evidence of employment. The policy explicitly states that if relying solely on the admission date (if "deemed date") would result in an applicant receiving fewer points than they claimed, the decision-maker should consider all the information and "apply the more beneficial outcome in determining when the applicant was working at a skilled level"

Evidentiary Burdens on the Solicitor Applicant

The onus of proof rests squarely on the applicant to substantiate their claims. To successfully claim points, particularly for pre-admission experience, the evidence must be comprehensive and persuasive. It must go beyond simply proving employment and focus on demonstrating the skill level of the duties performed. The evidence must be meticulously mapped to the tasks defined for a Solicitor in ANZSCO, which include providing legal advice, preparing legal documents, representing clients, and analyzing the probable outcomes of cases. The following table outlines the key evidentiary requirements.   

Duration of Employment

Signed employment contracts with clear start/end dates; Official letters of offer and termination; Detailed employment reference letters confirming dates of service.

Remuneration (min. 20 hrs/wk)

Official, sequential payslips showing gross pay and hours worked; Official government tax records (e.g., ATO income statements); Bank statements showing regular salary deposits; Employment contracts specifying salary and hours.

Skill Level (Congruent with ANZSCO 271311)

A detailed employment reference letter on official letterhead, signed by a direct supervisor, specifying duties and responsibilities that are explicitly mapped to the ANZSCO tasks for a Solicitor; Official position descriptions; Redacted work samples (e.g., legal advice, submissions, contracts) with client-confidential information removed; Evidence of managing client files or having carriage of matters.

This transforms the application process from a box-ticking exercise into the preparation of a persuasive legal submission, where the quality and specificity of the evidence are determinative.

The single most important document is often the employment reference letter. A generic, one-paragraph letter is insufficient. The reference should be a detailed, multi-page document, ideally written with the ANZSCO task list for a Solicitor at hand. It must explicitly demonstrate how the applicant's day-to-day duties fulfilled the requirements of the occupation at a skilled level. It should detail the complexity of the work, the level of autonomy, and the nature of the responsibilities held. For pre-admission work, the letter must be particularly persuasive in arguing that the applicant was operating at a level far exceeding that of a typical trainee or paralegal.

If the Department issues a Request for Further Information (RFI) questioning a period of claimed employment, the response should not be a simple provision of more documents. It should be treated as a formal legal submission. The response should directly address the case officer's concerns, provide further targeted evidence, and, where appropriate, make submissions that refer to the Department's own policies, such as the "more beneficial outcome" directive in PAM3. Should the application be refused on the basis of insufficient employment points, an applicant has the right to seek merits review at the AAT. The grounds for review would focus on arguing that the decision-maker erred in their assessment of the evidence. This could include arguments that the decision-maker placed undue weight on the date of admission, failed to properly consider the evidence of the applicant's actual duties against the ANZSCO standard, or failed to correctly apply departmental policy. A successful application for points as a solicitor is therefore a continuous strategic exercise, from the initial EOI to the final decision, grounded in a thorough understanding of the law, policy, and the higher burden of proof required.

Over-claiming points in an EOI can have severe consequences. If an applicant is invited to apply based on a points score that they subsequently cannot substantiate, the visa application will be refused. More seriously, this can lead to a finding under Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, which relates to providing false or misleading information or bogus documents. A PIC 4020 finding can result in a three-year ban on applying for most Australian visas, making it a critical risk to manage.

Analysis of Adjudicative Principles and Precedents

As will be addressed below, while the provided materials do not contain specific judicial or administrative tribunal decisions, the content of the Department's internal policies provides a clear window into the established legal principles that govern these assessments. Departmental policies like PAM3 are not created in a vacuum; they are living documents, shaped and refined over time by the outcomes of merits review and judicial challenges. They are designed to ensure decision-making is consistent, lawful, and capable of withstanding external scrutiny. Therefore, an analysis of the policy is effectively an analysis of the settled principles derived from the case law that shaped it.

The Status of Pre-Admission Experience

The most common point of legal contention for solicitor applicants is the classification of work experience gained prior to their formal admission to practice.

The likely argument for refusal from the Department would be grounded in the definition of the occupation. It would contend that roles such as paralegal or trainee are, by their nature, supervised and preparatory. They do not involve the level of professional autonomy, ultimate responsibility for advice, or the full spectrum of duties of an admitted solicitor as defined by ANZSCO. The absence of admission is presented as prima facie evidence that the required skill level was not met. -- However, note that Solicitors on restricted practice are also supervised - permitted only to engage in supervised legal practice.

Conversely, the applicant's argument for acceptance would rely heavily on the "more beneficial outcome" policy (PAM3, Sch 6D, para 10.4 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2020/fa-200601127-document-released.pdf>). The legal principle advanced would be one of substance over form. The applicant would need to argue that, in their specific circumstances, their duties and responsibilities in a pre-admission role were functionally indistinguishable from those of a junior solicitor. This argument is intensely fact-dependent and requires overwhelming evidence. For example, a senior paralegal in a specialized area who was drafting complex advice for partner review, managing client relationships directly, and having day-to-day carriage of files with minimal supervision could mount a compelling case that their work was, in substance, at the skilled level of a solicitor. 

Deeming Date

In relation to the Deeming Date, ie, date deemed skilled, see Employment in the Skill Level / in the Skilled Occupation - Post Degree in [B] Employment in the Skilled Occupation - Points Test - Sch 6 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) above. -- especially in relation to interpretation of the ANZSCO skill level and  in relation to registered occupations such as Registered Nurses. See particularly, NZ law graduate, Residence Appeal No: 15648 [2007] NZRRB 400 <https://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZRRB/2007/400.html>.  

"Closely Related" Occupations in the Legal Field -- but note Chalise FCCA above. 

The provision allowing points for "closely related" occupations also gives rise to adjudicative questions. The legal test applied by a decision-maker would involve a direct comparison of the lead statements, task descriptions, and skill level specifications in ANZSCO for the nominated occupation (Solicitor) and the claimed "closely related" occupation.

For instance, an applicant who worked as a Barrister (ANZSCO 271211) would likely succeed, as the core legal skills and knowledge base show significant overlap. However, a claim for a more distinct role, such as a policy advisor in a government department, would require a much more detailed submission demonstrating how the specific duties of that role align with the core competencies of a solicitor, such as statutory interpretation, legal analysis, and drafting of complex documents. The success of such a claim depends on the ability to draw a clear and evidence-based line between the two occupational descriptions in ANZSCO.

The "Deeming Date" Anomaly and Merits Review

The tension between a rigid "deeming date" and a more holistic assessment of skill is a central theme in administrative law. If the Department were to refuse points for a period of employment solely because it occurred before the date of admission, while ignoring compelling evidence that the work was performed at the required skill level, its decision would be vulnerable on appeal.

Such a decision could constitute a jurisdictional error on the grounds of failure to take into account a relevant consideration—namely, the substantive evidence of the applicant's actual duties and experience. This provides a clear pathway for an applicant to seek merits review at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT is empowered to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker, re-examine all the facts, and arrive at the correct and preferable decision. The very existence of the "more beneficial outcome" policy within PAM3 is the Department's internal mechanism to mitigate the risk of its decisions being overturned on precisely these grounds. It reflects an administrative law landscape where advocacy and legal challenges have successfully established that a purely formulaic approach is insufficient.

The entire adjudicative process operates on the "balance of probabilities," and the onus of proof remains entirely on the applicant. The Department is not required to make beneficial assumptions; it must be persuaded by the evidence provided. The "more beneficial outcome" policy does not shift this onus, but it does create a mandatory obligation for the decision-maker to genuinely engage with and consider a well-evidenced argument, rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds alone.

PAM3 - 2003

Drake

Criticisms


[B.A] Non-admitted Corporate Legal Officer - finding that Applicant practiced law in India - Assessed to be undertaking duties of a Solicitor - finding that usual occupation was that of a Solicitor - finding that Applicant's usual occupation was Solicitor, limited only for purposes of the Migration Act 1958, not confer right to practice in Australia

> different statutory criteria evaluated - here required determination of what the applicant's usual occupation was. Sch 6D of the Migration Act requires determination of whether an applicant was employed in his nominated skilled occupation. PAM3, 6D, 10.4.1: whether "the applicant is undertaking at least some of the duties prescribed for the position in ANZSCO, for example, if a client is claiming employment as a carpenter, the tasks they are undertaking are those of a carpenter. " PAM3 <https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2020/fa-200601127-document-released.pdf>. 

> but see: Greek law graduate, work as 'lawyers assistant' - "The evidence does not suggest that he had been working as a  solicitor  during the relevant period": "The skill/employment qualification is assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations where there is no provision for a score of 45  points . In order to attain the score of 50  points  and above, the respective requirements specified under items 6101 to 6105 of Schedule 6 must be satisfied. Item 6101 provides for a score of 80  points  and relates to 'priority occupation[s]' so specified by Gazette Notice (see regulation 2.26(5) of the Regulations). There is no Gazette Notice in relation to such occupations. One of the criteria common to both items 6102 and 6103, which respectively entitles an applicant to 70 and 60  points , specifies that an applicant's occupation is to be one entry to which, in Australia, a degree or trade certificate is required. Likewise one of the requirements common to both items 6104 and 6105, which provide respectively for a score of 55 and 50  points , specifies an associate diploma or a diploma as an educational entry requirement. That stated it means that in order to score the 50  points  he require to reach the pass mark of 50  points , the Principal must have a 'usual occupation', a term which will be discussed later, which requires at least an associate diploma as an educational entry requirement. According to the information provided under the original application, the Principal had completed a total of twelve years of primary and secondary education between 1962 and 1974. He then embarked on the study of law which took him twelve years to complete. His brother told the Tribunal that the reason for the extended period of study was probably the constant changes which took place in the educational system in Macedonia although he conceded that he could not say for sure. In 1986 the Principal graduated as a lawyer from the University of Bitola. He migrated to Australia the following year and stayed for about twenty months before returning to Macedonia to get married. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his brother had tried to renew the return resident visa under which he had departed Australia but was apparently told that he could only do that in Australia. For reasons not readily apparent he allowed his return resident visa to lapse and in 1992 he lodged a fresh application for permanent residence of Australia. That application was unsuccessful as was a subsequent appeal to the MIRO. According to information provided under the original application the Principal was employed as a 'secretary' at a school between November 1991 and July 1992. For the next six months or so he was unemployed. During the period between January 1993 and May 1995 he worked as a 'lawyer's assistant'. It was the Applicant's evidence that since May 1995 his brother has not been able to secure permanent employment and has been working as a 'freelance' or casual 'lawyer's assistant'. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that his brother's wife is not in paid employment. Under the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations, it is necessary firstly to ascertain an applicant's, or in this instance the Principal's, 'usual occupation'. This term is defined in clause 2.26(5) of the Regulations as 'an occupation that [an] applicant has engaged in for gain or reward for a continuous period of at least 6 months during the period of 2 years immediately preceding the relevant application for a visa'. At the request of the Tribunal the Principal provided the following statement of his duties as a 'lawyer's assistant' during the two years prior to lodgement of the original application: 1. Preparation of accusations, such were accusations for marriage divorce, support accusation, accusations for debt payment, compensation accusations, accusation for establishment of the right of property based on inheritance, accusation for realization of the sales contract for chattel and so on. 2. Preparation of applications for issue of documents by the state authorities for the needs of the parties. 3. Preparations of complaints - accusations against verdicts, the parties may bring complaints against the court verdicts in due time against the verdicts. - complaints against decision - against the decisions made by the court of original jurisdiction - complaints are allowed against the decision to the court of the second degree in cases when is allowed by a law. Preparations of sale contracts of real estate, such as: for house sales, lands, for sales of motor vehicles. - preparation of contracts for a gift. - preparation of contracts for a life support. - preparation of testaments and etc. On the evidence the Tribunal finds that Principal's 'usual occupation' is that of a  law clerk . The evidence does not suggest that he had been working as a  solicitor  during the relevant period. The Applicant's migration agent has contended that the Principal may be assessed as an office manager or an administrative assistant. The Tribunal is unable to agree with that contention because there is nothing in the evidence which would lend it support. To pursue that argument seems to me to be embarking on a 'fishing' expedition. The Tribunal's enquiries indicate that the occupation of a  law clerk  is not one which in Australia requires any qualification and certainly not an associate diploma or diploma, and neither has it been contended otherwise. For reasons indicated earlier the Principal must have a 'usual occupation' which requires at least an associate diploma as an educational entry requirement in order to reach the pass mark. As the Tribunal has found that this is not the case, it is not necessary to proceed any further with the  points  test assessment. The Tribunal finds that the Principal is unable to reach the qualifying score under an assessment carried out pursuant to Subdivision B of Division 2, Part 2 of the Act.": Applicant: Dimitar Nojkovski IRT Reference: W98/00202 #number 12275 [1998] IRTA 12275 <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/IRTA/1998/12275.html>. 


[B.B] Paris Bar Trainee - Pre-Admission Experience - Practical Experience for Admission to Paris Bar assessed to be employed at the professional level in the occupation of Solicitor - experience counted towards employment in Solicitor occupation; Applicant had been admitted to Paris Bar at the time of the Application


[B.C] Employment as a Law Graduate then Solicitor - both counted towards Australian Employment Qualifications - post UWA JD work: 


[B.D] Tasks of a Law Clerk, Legal Officer (non-admitted)

'Engage in Legal Practice'

Law Graduate - PLT - Work Experience not Employment unless there is an agreement between the host and WE student constituting a contract of employment

Law Graduates - ?Provision of Legal Services

> "16. Legal professional privilege covers communications between a client and his or her legal adviser. It has been recognised that, in some circumstances, “legal adviser” may include a paralegal,  articled clerk  or other law clerk in the employ of a qualified legal practitioner: see for example, in the statutory setting, the definition of “lawyer” in s 117(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). In Phipson on Evidence (15th ed, 2000) at [20-14] the proposition is stated thus: Where there are unqualified staff involved in the giving of advice in a department  supervised  by qualified lawyers, it may be possible to claim privilege. The problem may arise in law firms, where there are paralegals or other unqualified persons giving advice under supervision. ... If the person who gives the advice is a paralegal and is working  supervised  by a  solicitor  under law society rules, then the advice is in truth the advice of the firm (and not the advice of the paralegal) and will be privileged.": Kiefel v State of Victoria (Department of Education & Early Childhood Development) [2012] FCA 622.

>> "21 Within the items relating to getting up, there were a number of charges for work carried out by an  articled clerk . Some of that work was carried out while the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) was in force. Because the practitioner was put to strict proof of his bill, he would only have been entitled to charge for that work if he proved that it was carried out under his supervision. 22 The authority for that proposition is contained in the judgment of the Chief Justice in D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas (1994) 10 WAR 191: in particular at 220 under the heading of Conclusions. 23 The taxing officer said, in par 29 of his reasons: When asked to show any evidence of supervision of the clerical work counsel for the practitioner was unable to do so. The fact the time is claimed for work done by a  solicitor  and a clerk in some instances on the same day and in others within a few days is not evidence of supervision of the clerk by the  solicitor  nor is it enough of a basis on which to draw any inference about supervision. I accept that  articled clerks  are in a special category in that they are obliged to be  supervised  by their principals but I do not accept that an obligation to supervise is evidence that supervision took place nor do I accept that traditional notice of the fact that  articled clerks  are  supervised  by their principals arises to prove actual supervision by the principal in this case. Section 124(2) of the Legal Practice Act does not remove the obligation of the principal to supervise the work of an  articled clerk  but as was submitted by counsel for the party charged 'only removes an articled clear from the prohibition against practice of law whilst an uncertificated legal practitioner. ... 28. That is clearly not the position as the taxing officer saw it: and in my view he did not err in principle. That is to say, I respectfully agree with the taxing officer that s 124(2) does not relieve the practitioner of the obligation to prove that the work carried out by the  articled clerk  was  supervised . I therefore see no error in principle in the way in which the taxing officer dealt with item 12 of the bill.": CHALLEN -v- PAUL O'HALLORAN & ASSOCIATES [2008] WASC 169.

>> See also, Double Bay Law Pty Ltd t/a & Legal v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2013] NSWADT 182, para 53, distinction between charging fees on own account and on firm's account.

> "74. Brennan CJ noted in Propend Finance that it is common in the age of the photocopier and laser printer that multiple copies of a document might come into existence: at 507. In a large organisation, copies of documents being forwarded to lawyers for the purposes of advice might be made widely available to corporate officers with an interest in the questions being put to the lawyers. The reasoning of Franki J in Brambles suggests the courts need to take a reasonably flexible approach when dealing with the reality of how organisations function. As a practical matter, the process of seeking advice is not necessarily a linear one that proceeds from a single officer of the client to a single officer of the law firm. The process of advice seeking might require the input of many people on the client’s side. Many copies and drafts and other internal communications might be generated in the course of what could be a lengthy, almost bureaucratic process. Once the request for advice is received by the lawyer, the process of giving advice might involve input from a great number of lawyers - from the  hapless articled clerk  who is commissioned to undertake a narrowly defined research task without any sense of the larger issues, to the senior lawyer who has contact with the client and an overview of the file but who mostly orchestrates the work of others. Documents stored on databases might be accessed and copied many, many times in the course of this process. Questions of privilege must be decided with this reality in mind.": Haneef and Australian Federal Police and Anor [2010] AATA 514 .

> "56. The process of giving or receiving legal advice in a government agency can be bureaucratic. Input may be sought from different lawyers of varying degrees of seniority and with different areas of responsibility. Deputy President McCabe (then Senior Member McCabe) discussed the need for “a reasonably flexible approach when dealing with the reality of how agencies function” in Haneef and Australian Federal Police and Anor [2010] AATA 514 (Haneef) at [74]. The Deputy President continued: As a practical matter, the process of seeking advice is not necessarily a linear one that proceeds from a single officer of the client to a single officer of the law firm. The process of advice seeking might require the input of many people on the client’s side. Many copies and drafts and other internal communications might be generated in the course of what could be a lengthy, almost bureaucratic process. Once the request for advice is received by the lawyer, the process of giving advice might involve input from a great number of lawyers – from the  hapless articled clerk  who is commissioned to undertake a narrowly defined research task without any sense of the larger issues, to the senior lawyer who has contact with the client and an overview of the file but who mostly orchestrates the work of others. Documents stored on databases might be accessed and copied many, many times in the course of this process. Questions of privilege must be decided with this reality in mind.": Shord and Commissioner of Taxation (Freedom of information) [2022] AATA 1536.

> UK trainee solicitor, giving supervised legal advice: "76. In Privilege, fourth edition, in the discussion of Dadourian, at paragraph 1-309 there is the observation: “Of course there will be lawyers employed in private practice and inhouse who will not have a practising certificate, for example a trainee solicitor, and yet their advice, so long as given under the supervision of a solicitors, will attract privilege.”": Trentside Manor Care Ltd and Others v Raphael [2022] EAT 37.

> s 37 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA): "General savings on repeal   (1) Where a written law repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears — ... (b) affect the previous operation of the enactment repealed or anything duly done or suffered under that enactment; (c) affect any right, interest, title, power or privilege created, acquired, accrued, established or exercisable or any status or capacity existing prior to the repeal; (d) affect any duty, obligation, liability, or burden of proof imposed, created, or incurred prior to the repeal;"

> Accrued rights: "[39] ... This concept finds its way into the law, both in the common law and under section 8(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The latter provides that "where an Act repeals in the whole or in part a former Act, then unless the contrary intention appears the repeal shall not ... affect any right privilege obligation or liability acquired accrued or incurred under any Act so repealed". This gives a person affected by the repeal a right to be considered "as if the repealing Act had not been passed". This was discussed in detail in Yao's case where the majority of the Full Court held that "the word "right" does not stand alone. It must have "accrued".": Farr, C'Yan-Ally [2003] MRTA 870.

> *** Legal Professional Uniform Law (NSW); Legal Professional Uniform Law (Vic); Legal Professional Uniform Law (WA) post 1 July 2022: see 'Legal Practice Matrix' (Law Society of New South Wales, June 2023) <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/Law%20Society%20-%20Legal%20Practice%20Matrix_March%202023.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250420232408/https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/Law%20Society%20-%20Legal%20Practice%20Matrix_March%202023.pdf> -- draft legal correspondence, provide legal advice settled and approved the principal, and draft court documents subject to settling and approval.

> "The Law Society then sets out which types of legal work a specific type of legal practitioner can engage in within the jurisdiction of NSW, depending on their legal qualifications and practising entitlements. In terms of drafting legal correspondence, a law graduate can if approved by a principal, an employee is permitted to, but if that employee is required to be supervised by the principal, that needs to be provided. Legal correspondence can also be actioned by principals, corporate or government practitioners, as can an admitted Australian lawyer without a practising certificate, an Australian-registered foreign lawyer, a consultant or a contractor, as well as a retired lawyer. Certifying documents, witnessing an affidavit and the provision of legal advice can be performed by all aforementioned legal professionals except in terms a law graduate, an admitted Australian lawyer without a current practising certificate or retired lawyers. All practitioners are permitted to engage in drafting court documents, and that includes law graduates. However, law graduates are barred from appearing in directions hearings, which are preliminary hearings that occur pretrial, as well as being prohibited from acting as the lawyer on the record, or the legal professional registered as acting on behalf of a client in a case, and graduates can’t sign a costs bill, which is a receipt that lists the court costs of the prevailing party in a case, of which the losing party has been ordered to pay.": 'Categories of Practising Law in New South Wales: The Legal Practice Matrix' (NSW Courts, 8 April 2024) <https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/categories-of-practising-law-in-new-south-wales-the-legal-practice-matrix/>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250418132554/https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/categories-of-practising-law-in-new-south-wales-the-legal-practice-matrix/>. 

> "graduate solicitor" -- see caution in Shane Budden, 'The graduate – what should you call yourself?' (Proctor, 3 January 2024) <https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2024/01/the-graduate-what-should-you-call-yourself/>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20250420163551/https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2024/01/the-graduate-what-should-you-call-yourself/>. 

> see also: 'Ethics & Standards Quarterly: dos and don’ts for graduates' (LSJ Online, 24 February 2023) <https://lsj.com.au/articles/ethics-standards-quarterly-dos-and-donts-for-graduates/>. 

> on appeal: "[34] There was no dispute between the parties that in respect of the work carried out in the office Ms Muldoon was at all material times under the supervision of the Respondent and we are prepared to accept that delegation of that work in those circumstances was permissible. There is, however, no evidence of any direct supervision of the conduct of the hearing. Ms Muldoon conducted the hearing entirely on her own. The client did not receive representation by a solicitor but rather was represented by a non-legally qualified person. Payment for such services does not fall within the legal aid scheme.": Re Drinan's Application for Judicial Review [2014] NICA 7.

> See also, "... It is, of course, very difficult for an inexperienced trainee solicitor to take over an active caseload with almost no supervision. ...": Daley v Solomon trading as Livingstone Solomon [1995] Lexis Citation 4649 (CA). 

> "25. However, the determination of the appropriate classification under the Award, given the unique circumstances, was not immediately apparent. In my substantive decision I described the classification structure of the Award thus at [36]: “In context, it can be said that the classification structure of the Award contemplates, on the one hand, a clerical and administrative stream for employees employed by employers. In this stream progression is provided from Level 1 to Level 5. The structure also caters for  Law graduates  who are undertaking, what has hitherto been known as clerkship, but described in this Award as training for the purpose of admission into practice. The  Law Graduate  is classified as Level 5 but receives a higher rate of pay than Level 5 - Legal, Clerical and Administrative employee. The highest rate of pay under the Award paid to a classification is Level 6 – Law Clerk.”": Finberg v Efron [2016] FCCA 1184.

> "35. Clause 3 – Definitions and Interpretation of the Award, at 3.1 contains the following relevant definitions:   law clerk means a clerk who is engaged for the major part of their time in interviewing clients, preparing documents and general work assisting a barrister or solicitor in their practice, but will not include account clerks,  law graduates , titles office clerks, receptionists and employees principally engaged in word processing, computer use, filing, machine operation, switchboard, delivery of documents or duties of a routine nature law graduate  means a lawyer not admitted to practice but who is undertaking a period of training within a law firm with the view to being admitted to practice legal clerical and administrative employee means an employee in the clerical and administrative stream legal services industry means employers engaged in the business of providing legal and legal support services. 36. In context, it can be said that the classification structure of the Award contemplates, on the one hand, a clerical and administrative stream for employees employed by employers. In this stream progression is provided from Level 1 to Level 5. The structure also caters for  Law graduates  who are undertaking, what has hitherto been known as clerkship, but described in this Award as training for the purpose of admission into practice. The  Law Graduate  is classified as Level 5 but receives a higher rate of pay than Level 5 - Legal, Clerical and Administrative employee. The highest rate of pay under the Award paid to a classification is Level 6 – Law Clerk. ... B.6 Level 5— Law graduate  B.6.1 Characteristics This position requires the completion of a course of study which is recognised as an academic qualification for admission and a formal offer by the employer to the  law graduate , the acceptance of that offer and registration and approval of all documentation required by the relevant governing bodies.": Finberg v Efron [2015] FCCA 2470.

Comparison with Junior Lawyers / Junior Solicitors

Example, Job Descriptions


[B.D.A] Employment before LLB graduation not employment in occupation of Solicitor, but Law Clerk or Administrative Clerk/Employee

Compare these case law with [B.D] re skill level.  


[B.E] Legal Officer - non-admitted, no opinion on whether co-extensive with role of Solicitor


[B.E.A] Legal Adviser - Non-admitted - Delegate assessed as employment in occupation of Legal Practitioner - Tribunal assessed it as Legal Professional


[B.F] Solicitors - overseas qualified and admitted


[B.G] Sri Lanka - Employment by Barrister - "Prosecution and defence in courts of law and attending deeds as notary public"


[B.H] Attorney- at-Law, Belgrade - Finding that work duties, responsibilities, match those of Barrister and of Solicitor in the ASCO


[B.I] Contracts Adviser - Legal Professional


[B.J] Law Council of Australia - Commentary


[B.K] Australian-registered Foreign Lawyer


[B.L] NZ - Unpaid Intern - Post LLB but prior to admission - unpaid is not "work" - but see opinion expressed on experience - ANZSCO:


[B.M] Law Graduate - Paid Agent of a Law Firm - FWC


[C] Skills Assessment - Solicitor - 

For the vast majority of skilled occupations, the skills assessment is a procedural step wherein an accredited body evaluates an applicant's qualifications and work experience against the standards defined by ANZSCO. For the occupation of Solicitor, however, this process is fundamentally different. It is not merely a procedural hurdle but a transformative journey that requires the applicant to navigate the complex and demanding regulatory framework of the Australian legal profession itself. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of this unique "skills assessment," which is inextricably linked with the formal process of admission to legal practice in an Australian state or territory. It details the governing principles, the multi-stage pathway, and the significant practical barriers that applicants must overcome.

The Unique Nature of the Solicitor Skills Assessment

The Department of Home Affairs' policy is unequivocal: for the occupation of Solicitor (ANZSCO 271311), a "suitable skills assessment" is constituted by "evidence of admission to practice as a lawyer in the relevant State/Territory". The acceptable evidence is typically an Australian legal Admission Certificate issued by a Supreme Court or a current Practising Certificate issued by a state or territory law society or regulatory authority.   

This approach fundamentally distinguishes the solicitor pathway from nearly all other professions. Occupations such as accountants, engineers, or IT professionals have their skills assessed by designated independent authorities like CPA Australia, Engineers Australia, or the Australian Computer Society, respectively. These bodies have established criteria to assess the equivalence of foreign degrees and the relevance of work experience. In stark contrast, the "assessing authorities" for solicitors are the very bodies that regulate entry into the legal profession in each Australian jurisdiction, such as the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) in New South Wales or the Victorian Legal Admissions Board (VLAB).   

The mandatory nature of this assessment for points-tested visas (subclasses 189, 190, 491) and for the Direct Entry stream of employer-sponsored visas (subclass 186) is absolute. Critically, for points-tested visas, the regulations require that the applicant must have obtained this positive skills assessment by the time they are invited to apply for the visa. This "time of invitation" requirement is a rigid and unforgiving rule, the breach of which is a common cause of visa refusal with no scope for remedial action after the fact.   

The "Shadow Criteria"

The formal visa criteria published by the Department of Home Affairs—such as the points test, age limits, and basic English requirements—represent only the visible tip of the iceberg. The true, determinative requirements are the detailed, rigorous, and non-negotiable academic and professional standards set by Australia's legal admitting authorities. These can be understood as the "shadow criteria" of the migration process.

A prospective applicant might review the Home Affairs website and see a straightforward requirement for a "suitable skills assessment". They then discover this means "admission to practice" , which may still sound like a single, discrete step. However, to achieve that single step, they must successfully navigate an entirely separate and complex regulatory ecosystem governed by state-based bodies and the LACC Uniform Principles. This separate system imposes its own demanding requirements regarding specific academic subjects, competency-based practical training, and an exceptionally high standard of English proficiency. These are not explicitly listed in the Migration Regulations, yet they are absolute prerequisites to meeting the regulations.   

Consequently, the success or failure of a skilled visa application for a solicitor is effectively predetermined by the outcome of a process that occurs entirely outside the migration framework. These "shadow criteria" of the legal profession are far more challenging and ultimately more determinative than the points test or other standard migration requirements. For legal practitioners advising clients in this area, a failure to look beyond the Migration Act and Regulations to provide deep, expert guidance on this parallel journey through the legal admissions process constitutes a critical professional oversight.

[C.1] prior to admission (and prior to invitation)

[C.2] ?Prior to Invitation

> "11. In Thapa v MICMSMA [2021] FCCA 686 the Court considered the interpretation of cl  189.222 , which like cl.491.214, requires that the applicant had a relevant skills assessment, ‘at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa’. The Court held that the relevant point in time for which the requirement in cl  189.222  must be met is not the date of the invitation but rather, the period within which the invitation was valid or open (being the period between the date of the invitation and the expiration of the invitation). This interpretation appears equally applicable to the requirement in cl 491.214.": De Guzman (Migration) [2022] AATA 5097.

> "31. The Tribunal has considered the recent case of Thapa v MICMSMA [2021] FCCA 686, in which the Court considered the interpretation of cl. 189.222 , which, like cl.491.214, requires that the applicant had a relevant skills assessment ‘at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa.’ The Court held that the relevant point in time at which the requirement in cl. 189.222  must be met is not the date of the invitation but rather, the period within which the invitation was valid or open (being the period between the date of the invitation and the expiry of the invitation). This interpretation appears equally applicable to the requirements of cl.491.214. However, in this case, that period ran between 26 May 2021 and 26 July 2021; during this period, the first skills assessment was more than 3 years old, and the second skills assessment had not been issued. Therefore, Thapa’s case does not assist the applicant.": Chowdhury (Migration) [2024] AATA 1011.

[C.3] Procedural Instructions - Skills Assessment

[C.4] How and When was Qualification Obtained (where skill assessments assessed on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia while on a student visa) - eg, Sch 2, 189.222(2)

Procedural Instructions / PAM3

Case Law

>> but see comments by the FCA on "qualification" in Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (includes corrigenda dated 9 February 2001) [2000] FCA 1901 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/1901.html> above. 

>> but see also, "18. The term "qualification" is not defined in the MRA. It does appear in s 4(1), which defines "occupation" to mean an occupation, trade, profession or calling that may be carried on by registered persons, where registration is dependent on "the attainment or possession of some qualification (for example, training, education, examination, experience, character or being fit or proper)". 19. The VBA submits that the definition of "occupation" should not be taken to control that of "qualification". The text of s 17(2)(b) suggests "qualification" has a narrower meaning than is given in s 4(1). It cannot have the same meaning as in the definition of "occupation" because the latter includes "experience" as a qualification, whereas s 17(2)(b) treats "experience" as different from a qualification in its reference to "qualification or experience". This would suggest that "qualification" is intended to refer merely to an academic or other educational or technical qualification, as was held in Re Director-General of Health (Cth); Ex parte Thomson[16]. 20. The context provided by Pt 3 also indicates a narrow meaning of "qualification" in s 17(2)(b) which does not extend to character, the VBA submits. The same phrase is used in s 20(4), which provides that continuation of registration is subject to the laws of the second State, which are described in the same way as in s 17(2). Such laws must not be based on the attainment or possession of some qualification or experience relating to fitness to carry on the occupation. If "qualification or experience" is construed to extend to character requirements, it would produce the absurd and unintended consequence that a person's registration in the second State could never be revoked on the basis that the person ceased to be of good character, the VBA contends. A harmonious reading of ss 17(2) and 20(4) requires a conclusion that s 17(2)(b) does not encompass requirements as to character. 21. The text of s 17(2)(b) does not support the VBA's submission. If only the words "qualification or experience" appeared there, there might be something to be said for the view that "qualification" is intended to refer to some technical qualification. The relevant provisions in Thomson required regard to be had to the "qualifications, experience and standing" of a medical practitioner in determining whether he or she be recognised as a specialist. But s 17(2)(b) contains a further description. It refers to a qualification or experience "relating to fitness to carry on the occupation". Not only do these words suggest a broader meaning than that a qualification be of an educational or technical kind, they clearly encompass the subject matter of s 170(1)(c) of the Building Act, namely whether a person is of good character and therefore fit to carry on the occupation. The evident purpose of the enquiry under the Building Act is to determine whether the person has that inherent characteristic or quality. 22. So understood, the meaning of "qualification" in s 17(2)(b) is consistent with that appearing in the definition of "occupation". Indeed, were the text of s 17(2)(b) itself not so clear, one would wonder why the definition of "occupation" in s 4(1) would not be useful as an aid to construction. It may not itself provide a definition of "qualification" but it gives examples of what may be taken to fall within that description and "character or being fit or proper" are included amongst them in addition to "education" and "experience". This is understandable since these characteristics would generally be understood to be requirements of most occupations, unless the context suggested otherwise such as in Thomson. The examples given in s 4(1) should be taken to indicate that the term "qualification" when it is used in the MRA is to have a broader meaning than as relates to education. 23. A construction of s 17(2)(b) which excludes a law which allows a local registration body to determine the question of the fitness of a person to carry on an occupation as a prerequisite to registration is consistent with the scheme of the MRA and the mutual recognition principle on which it is founded. 24. The mutual recognition principle accepts that registration for an occupation in the first State is sufficient for registration in the second State, without any further requirements of the laws of the second State being fulfilled. Were it otherwise, the primary purpose of the MRA would be substantially undermined. 25. This understanding of the operation of the mutual recognition principle is confirmed by s 20(1), which speaks of an entitlement to be registered in the second State on notification of registration in the first State, and of the law of the second State being taken to accept that as a sufficient ground for registration. A State Act such as the Building Act is, by s 20(1), to be understood to so provide.  ... 27. This is not to say that the local registration authority of the second State is unable to make any enquiries. By s 19(2)(h) a person is required to consent to that taking place and to exchanges of information between the authorities of any States. But these enquiries can only be directed to the exercise of the powers given by the MRA to the local registration authority of the second State other than that to grant registration. They are the powers to postpone or refuse registration[19] or to condition it[20].  The powers to postpone or refuse registration are limited to the circumstances outlined above. ... 46. In Re Petroulias the applicant for admission as a legal practitioner did not make the declaration required by s 19(2)(d) of the MRA, that he was not the subject of any investigation in another State which might lead to disciplinary proceedings. He could not do so because he was in fact the subject of such an investigation, but he made no mention of it. De Jersey CJ held that because the applicant did not accurately verify the statutory declaration his notice did not meet the requirements of s 19. The entitlement to registration did not therefore crystallise. Davies JA preferred to view the applicant's silence as materially false and misleading for the purposes of the postponement or refusal powers (ss 22 and 23 of the MRA). 47. In Re Petroulias the Court of Appeal of Queensland also expressed the view that the court retained its inherent jurisdiction respecting the admission of lawyers regardless of the MRA. This is a view that has been adopted by other courts. The correctness of it does not arise for consideration on this appeal. A view about the co-existence of a superior court's inherent jurisdiction and the MRA does not avail the VBA's argument for a more general discretion. ... 55. Insight into the basic design which the MRA adopts in the implementation of the national mutual recognition scheme to promote the goal of freedom of movement of goods and service providers in a national market in Australia is provided by the long title to the MRA[40]. The long title describes it as an "Act to provide for the recognition within each State and Territory of the Commonwealth of regulatory standards adopted elsewhere in Australia regarding goods and occupations". The description provides the greatest illumination when it is read together with the MRA's definitions of "goods" and of "occupation": "goods" encompass "goods of any kind"[41], and "occupation" encompasses "an occupation, trade, profession or calling of any kind that may be carried on only by registered persons, where registration is wholly or partly dependent on the attainment or possession of some qualification (for example, training, education, examination, experience, character or being fit or proper)"[42]. ... 78. Sections 17(2)(b) and 20(4)(b) as so interpreted combine to ensure that a law of the second State which regulates the manner of carrying on an occupation in the second State has no application to the continuance of a person's registration under s 20(2) of the MRA in the second State if, and to the extent that, the law requires or allows discontinuance of registration in the second State to be based on the registrant possessing or not possessing some experience or qualification of which training and education, as well as character and being fit or proper, are each examples. 79. The result is that questions as to the continuing qualification of a person to engage in an occupation for which the person has been registered in the second State – including questions as to the person's continuing good character or continuing fitness or propriety to engage in the occupation – are questions which the local registration authority of the second State has no authority to decide. Questions of that nature must be left by the local registration authority of the second State to be answered by the local registration authority of the first State. 80. The result accords with the generality of the already quoted explanation in the Minister's second reading speech that "[l]ocal registration authorities will be required to accept the judgment of their interstate counterparts of a person's educational qualifications, experience, character or fitness to practise".": Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis [2019] HCA 22. -- what MR Act registration entails in assessment.

> Recognition of minimum standards achieved for admission: "12. 12. Reference was made to the  Mutual Recognition Act 1992  (Cth). The purpose of that Act as it applies to the legal profession is to promote a national market in legal services and to that end the  Mutual Recognition Act  facilitates through a simple system of registration (and not formal  admission ) the recognition by one State or Territory of the right to practise as a legal practitioner gained in any State or Territory. To that extent the  Mutual Recognition Act  may be considered to contribute towards the development of a national legal profession. It is true that the spirit and intendment of the  Mutual Recognition Act  means that a court or other admitting authority in Australia should not favour an approach to recognition of qualifications for  admission  which discriminates against an applicant who has obtained proper qualifications elsewhere in Australia. However, there is a correlative responsibility cast upon this Court to act in the awareness that as a result of granting applications such as the present too readily, it might become the weakest point of entry into the legal profession in Australia. The Court should therefore not see in the fact (if it is a fact) that the applicant's qualifications are not sufficient for his  admission  anywhere else in Australia as contributing to any special circumstances which are relied upon in order to justify the exercise of the discretion to regard the applicant as one who has the practical training required in the Territory to entitle him to apply for  admission  as a barrister and  solicitor  of the Territory.": Re the Application of William Dudley Kavanagh To Be Admitted As A Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and Re the Legal Practitioners ACT [1995] ACTSC 12.

-> cf "It was clearly necessary that uniform or harmonious rules and standards for admission  apply in every jurisdiction in Australia, if the creation of a national legal profession, now an accepted objective, was to be brought about; such uniformity was a corollary of the application by all States and Territories (except Western Australia) of the  Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (C'th).  This need was much the same as the earlier need to bring the various State railways to a standard gauge, thereby breaking down unnecessary barriers to interstate trade and commerce in Australia.  Amongst the necessary common admission  standards are those which the requirements for practical legal training should meet.  Those common standards have not yet been developed by the Consultative Committee; hence the present generality of r11(1)(a).": Nelson, Application to practice as Legal Practitioner [1994] NTSC 86; 98 NTR 17; 116 FLR 104.

-> MR Act admission requires exercise of LP Act: "40. The same view of the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction was taken by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Re Tkacz [2006] WASC 315, 206 FLR 171. At [46] – [57] (183-6) the court referred to authorities on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with respect to legal practitioners generally, including Re Davis [1947] HCA 53; (1947) 75 CLR 409 and Re Petroulias. Their Honours examined relevant provisions of the  Mutual Recognition Act  at [62] – [69] (186-8). They observed at [64] that the provision in s 20(1) that a person is “entitled to be registered” in the circumstances set out in the subsection was a reference to the “sufficiency of the qualifications or experience necessary to secure registration,” noting that by subs (2) the grant of registration remained a matter for the discretion of the local registration authority. Their Honours concluded at [66] (187) that the “long-standing capacity of the superior courts to determine that only the persons with the requisite personal qualities of character be admitted to, or remain on, the Roll ... remains unaffected by the  mutual recognition  legislation.” The “established and long recognised power of the Court to determine whether a person should be admitted to its Roll” was held to apply equally to applicants for  admission  under the  mutual recognition  legislation as it does to applicants under the provisions of the relevant West Australian legislation, the Legal Practice Act 2003: [69] (188).": Comeskey v The New South Wales Bar Association [2015] NSWSC 824.

> "44  Application of mutual recognition principle (1) The mutual recognition principle and the provisions of this Act may be taken into consideration in proceedings of any kind and for any purpose. (2) Nothing in this Act prevents a person from relying on the mutual recognition principle in relation to more than 2 States. Note: The mutual recognition principle applies in relation to goods (see section 8), occupations that are equivalent (see section 16) and activities covered by occupations (see section 42A).": Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) s 44. 

> "Admission in one State entitles a person to mutual recognition in another pursuant to the  Mutual Recognition Act 1992  (Cth) and its State and Territory counterpart legislation.": LAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v BETRO (No 2) [2025] SASCFC 3, [125] (n 61) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASCFC/2025/3.html>. 

> ** 'qualification obtained in Australia' - whether for  Barristers, Solicitors, and Medical Practitioners - PAM3 / Procedural Instructions where admission and full medical registration by AHPRA is suitable skills assessment - whether 'qualification obtained in Australia' extends to 'admission' in Australia or 'AHPRA registration' cf educational qualifications - and if so, whether foreign practitioners on student visas prejudiced by reason of admission under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) or Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) or APHRA Competent Authority pathway, by reason of the 'qualification' being obtained solely as a result of occupational registration in Australia or overseas (and on no other grounds, eg, study).  

> "50. Recognised Prior Learning ( RPL ) is a well-established method by which a student can obtain from a provider a credit (or credits) for a subject (or subjects) previously undertaken by that student, either at that or some other provider, in respect of which he or she has been assessed as competent. A Transcript of Results issued by the second provider will usually record that a credit for a subject was obtained in this way to inform the reader that no formal assessment process was carried out by that provider in that subject.": Ghimire (Migration) [2023] AATA 3244.

> see also, "5. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the delegate found that the applicant did not meet cl 187.234 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires that the applicant either had a  skills assessment  for his occupation, if it were an occupation specified by the Minister, or has the qualifications listed in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) dictionary for the nominated occupation, or is exempt from these requirements. The delegate found that the applicant was not exempt, did not have a specified occupation and therefore had to have the qualifications listed in ANZSCO for a Chef. While the applicant held a Certificate III and Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, the delegate noted that they were obtained by Recognition of Prior Learning ( RPL ). The delegate applied Departmental policy, as set out in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3), to exclude these qualifications as PAM3 indicated that qualifications obtained entirely by  RPL  were not acceptable for the purposes of cl.187.234. The delegate considered the applicant’s prior work experience as a Cook and/or Chef, but found that most of it was unverified and was also largely undertaken while the applicant held a student visa restricting his work rights to 20 hours per week. The delegate was therefore not satisfied that the applicant had work experience at the required skilled level of at least 3 years, as also required. The delegate found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a subclass 187 visa in the Direct Entry and had not made claims against any other stream. ... 42. As noted above, the delegate did not accept that this qualification met the requirements in ANZSCO as Departmental policy (as set out in Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3)) as it stood at that time (March 2019) provided that a qualification obtained by  RPL  could not substitute for all of the course content in a credit transfer arrangement but could only apply to a small number of completed assessment items; and that where a decision maker was not satisfied the qualification genuinely reflected an appropriate level of assessment as evidence for skills acquired during a formal course of learning, then they could form the view that cl.187.234(c) was not met. 43. The Tribunal notes that this appears to have been removed from the current policy document used by the Department for cl.187.234(c) (as at January 2023). The Tribunal further notes that the plain wording of cl.187.234(c) requires only that the applicant obtained the necessary qualification in Australia, and had the qualification listed in ANZSCO as necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation. PAM3 as it stood previously arguably asks the decision maker to go behind the qualification itself and question the basis upon which it was issued, and the Tribunal considers that this goes beyond the requirements of the legislation. In the Tribunal’s view, this is supported by the fact that the current version of PAM3 on cl.187.234(c) no longer contains a prohibition on considering qualifications obtained solely or partly through  RPL . 44. However, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s Certificate III and Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery are not qualifications listed in ANZSCO as required for the occupation of Chef in Australia. Rather, a Diploma or higher qualification is required and there is no evidence that the applicant has a qualification of this kind, whether obtained in Australia or overseas, by study or  RPL . Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have the formal qualification(s) listed in ANZSCO for the occupation of Chef in Australia.": Kandel (Migration) [2023] AATA 105.

> "32. The plain wording of cl 187.234(c) of the Regulations applicable in this case requires that, in circumstances where an applicant has obtained the qualification in Australia, they must also have had the qualification listed in ANZSCO as necessary to perform the tasks of that occupation. In the opinion of the Tribunal, PAM 3 as at the time of the delegate’s decision, enabled a decision maker to  go behind  the qualification itself and question the basis on which it had been obtained. Consistent with the decision of the Tribunal (differently constituted) in Gautam [2022] AATA 2195, the Tribunal is of the view that the policy relied upon by the delegate goes beyond the requirements of the legislation. In the view of the Tribunal, this is supported by the fact that the current version of policy in relation to cl 187.234(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations no longer contains the text italicised above at para [30] prohibiting consideration of qualifications obtained solely or partly through RPL.": Rashed (Migration) [2022] AATA 3668.

> Matusiewicz (Migration) [2022] AATA 3603, [24]. 

> "20.Although not explicitly stated, it appears that the skills assessment issued to the applicant was based on the fact that she completed a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care at the Central Institute of Technology in Western Australia between 3 February 2014 and 4 December 2015. The Tribunal is satisfied from the Department’s records that the applicant held a subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) student visa throughout this period.": 1609140 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4762.

> "21. 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 must have been obtained as a result of studying a registered course (cl.485.224(2)). ‘Registered course’ is defined to mean a ‘course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under section 9 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students’ (r.1.03). 22. It is not entirely clear to the Tribunal whether the applicant’s most recent skills assessment from TRA was obtained as a result of his having studied a registered course in Australia, as it appears (from the applicant’s evidence at hearing) that his second skills assessment may have been successful as a result of his longer amount of employment experience as a welder since his first skills assessment application. 23. However, the Tribunal has nevertheless assessed him against cl.485.224(2) as it appears that his second skills assessment may have been partially based on his Australian qualification. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it finds that the applicant completed a Diploma of Engineering (Advanced Trade) (incorporating a Certificate IV in Engineering) at Kangan Institute of TAFE between 18 July 2011 and 14 June 2013. The Tribunal is satisfied from the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) that this is a registered course. It is further satisfied from the Department’s movement records that the applicant held a student visa (or visas) throughout the period of his studies. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant satisfies the requirements of cl.485.224(2).": 1417182 [2015] MRTA 493 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/493.html>. 

>  "17. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant’s skills were assessed partially on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia, being the Master of Business Administration at Federation University of Australia. The course study dates provided by the applicant on the visa application form were that the course commenced on 1 January 2014 to 3 March 2017, although the eCOE indicates that the course commenced in March 2015 and the academic transcript appears to reflect that the applicant commenced study in 2015. The academic transcript gives the course completion date of 4 November 2016 with the award being conferred on 7 February 2017. It appears that the applicant undertook the course from March 2015 to November 2016. As to the visa held while completing this study, based on the information before the Tribunal the applicant has held successive student visas since 23 September 2011 with short gaps where she held a Bridging Visa. Therefore, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the qualification was obtained as a result of studying a registered course (cl 485.224(2)). The Federation University of Australia is registered to provide the course to overseas students, and the Tribunal finds that the qualification was obtained as a result of studying a registered course.": Guzman Mahecha (Migration) [2021] AATA 2567.

> Kim (Migration) [2019] AATA 1429, [22] -- 572 visa and 500 visa. 

> relevant educational qualification obtained overseas: "11. The Tribunal finds on the basis of the skills assessment that the applicant’s skills have been assessed by the relevant assessing authority, the CPAA, as suitable for the nominated skilled occupation of External Auditor and that the applicant therefore satisfies the requirements of cl.190.212(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. ... 12. 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 must have been obtained as a result of studying a registered course (cl.190.212(2)). 13. The skills assessment indicates that the applicant’s skills were assessed on the basis of a qualification obtained overseas. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant’s skills were not assessed on the  basis of a qualification obtained in Australia while the applicant held a student visa . Accordingly cl.190.212(2) is not applicable in this case.": 1418857 [2015] MRTA 393 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2015/393.html>. 

> skill assessment based on overseas qualification: "15. As discussed above, the applicant’s skills assessment was based on his studies in Brazil and not on any studies or qualifications obtained in Australia. Accordingly, cl 485.224(2) does not apply in the applicant’s circumstances. Therefore, it follows that the applicant meets the requirements of cl 485.224.": Shimoyama (Migration) [2024] AATA 1663. 

> relevant qualification from India: "18. 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 must have been obtained as a result of studying a registered course (cl.485.224(2)). ‘Registered course’ is defined to mean a ‘course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under section 9 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students’ (r.1.03). 19. Information in the skills assessment document provided by Engineers Australia to the applicant indicates that the applicant’s skills were assessed on the basis of a Competency Demonstration Report (CDR) that he provided and his qualifications from Jawaharlal Nehru technological University Hyderabad which he had completed in May 2010. On this basis the Tribunal finds that his skills were not assessed on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia (although information on file indicates that he has also undertaken further study in Australia). 20. Therefore on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant’s skills were not assessed on the basis of a qualification obtained in Australia and therefore the requirements of cl.485.224(2) do not apply.": 1406888 [2014] MRTA 1416 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2014/1416.html>. 

> study done on bridging visa: "25. The applicant’s skills were assessed by TRA based on his Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology that he obtained from Central Australia College. Course completion documents for this course that were provided by the applicant to the Tribunal indicate that he undertook this course in Australia from 12 September 2022 to 26 March 2023. As the applicant confirmed at the hearing, and as verified by Department movement records, during this period of study he was in Australia on a bridging visa, not a student visa. Accordingly, in these circumstances, cl 485.224(2) does not apply.": Ramdhonee (Migration) [2024] AATA 231. 

> See also, Visa Applicant: Nicolino Di Sipioreview Applicant: Maria Castrenze IRT Reference: V97/01233 #number 10954 [1997] IRTA 10954 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/IRTA/1997/10954.html>.

Matter of fact, whether skills assessment took place - go behind?

Finding of what Qualification formed the Basis of a skills assessment, or not

Skills assessment on the basis of a Certificate from relevant assessment authority

?Skills assessment on the basis of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)

Skills assessment on the basis of current identified Australian occupational licence - TRA

> 'Pathway 2 (TRA) <https://www.tradesrecognitionaustralia.gov.au/pathway-2>, archived at <https://archive.is/JX8n9>.  

Enrolment in a non-CRICOS course - ?permitted in situations of concurrent enrolments

Registered Course requirement - Australian Study Requirement - applicable where qualification obtained is by Recognised Prior Learning and no Study undertaken - Skills Assessment based on RPL qualification - pending 189 visa application

CRICOS registered course qualification obtained partially by RPL credits from study done previously in non-CRICOS registered course - Tribunal accepted in this instance

Skills Assessment - 'a legal admissions authority of a State or Territory' - IMM LIN 19/051 - ?multiple Skills Assessing Authorities

> This appears to be the case for Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) r 2.26b <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/s2.26b.html> and LIN 19/051. 

> But, cf, for other visas (not 189/190): "27. Regulation 5.19(4)(c) provides that if it is mandatory in the  State or Territory  in which the position is located for a person to hold a licence or a registration of a particular kind, or be a member (or a member of a particular kind) of a particular professional body, to perform tasks of the kind to be performed in the occupation, the identified person is, or is eligible to become, the holder of the licence, the holder of the registration, or a member of the body, at the time of application. 28. In this instance, the relevant  State or Territory  is New South Wales, the relevant occupation is Café or Restaurant Manager, and the date of application is 23 October 2019. 29. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is not mandatory for the nominee to hold a licence for the position of Café or Restaurant Manager. 30. Given the above findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19(4)(c) is met.": M&SA Trading Pty Ltd (Migration) [2023] AATA 4276.

?Re-do qualification in CRICOS registered course; seek re-assessment of skills in the same nominated skilled occupation

Possible to seek re-assessment of skills from skill assessment authority?

> "24. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the skills assessment had actually been requested at the time of the visa application, and the Tribunal finds that it had not. However, it is clear that as a result of the  second skills assessment  requested after the visa application was lodged, and that a favourable assessment indicated that the applicant was suitable for migration to Australia as a cook. 25. The Court in Berenguel distinguished between time of application criteria which expressly require that the application must be accompanied by evidence of a thing having been done, in respect of which a failure to have provided that evidence with the application is fatal to the satisfaction of the criterion, and those time of application criteria which simply require that a thing has been done or a requirement met, in which case it may be done or met at any time up until the decision is made, including the decision on review. In the view of the Tribunal, clause 485.214 is an example of the latter. ...": 0904072 [2010] MRTA 1532  <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2010/1532.html>. 

> "12. In this case the period of the invitation was 21 May 2020 until 20 July 2020. The  second skills assessment  commenced 5 June 2020 which was within the period of the invitation. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that at the time of the invitation to apply for the visa the relevant assessing authority for the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation had assessed his skills as suitable for that occupation. The applicant meets cl 491.214(a).": De Guzman (Migration) [2022] AATA 5097.


[D] Assessment of Applicant's Engagement in Work - Analysis of Award under the Fair Work Act - PhD Student, Lab Work, Supervision


[E] Qualification: Skills Assessment and Employment Experience - ?Conflation


[F] Evidence, Submissions

> Accountant / Accounting Clerk – duties found to be same as Accountant: "[18] The Tribunal will consider the applicant’s employment with Veolia. Provided to the Department was an employment agreement between the applicant and Veolia which indicated that his employment was on a permanent full time basis in the position of assistant accountant on a salary of $53,000 plus the superannuation guarantee was to commence on 3 April 2017. The Commonwealth Bank statements for the applicant’s account for the period 22 August 2018 to 21 April 2019 indicate that the applicant was paid regular salary payments by Veolia during both periods of his employment with Veolia. … [20] Although the delegate was satisfied that the applicant worked for Veolia during the relevant period, the delegate was not satisfied that the  tasks  listed in the statement of service were consistent with those of the nominated occupation of Accountant (General) (ANZSCO 221111).and that they were more consistent with those of an Accounting Clerk (ANZSCO 551111). [21] The Tribunal has been provided with a confirmation of employment letter dated 20 September 2017 by Mr Steve Moore, General Manager Finance and Administration VIC/TAS Waste / Water (the confirmation of employment letter). In relation to the applicant’s first period of employment with Veolia the letter stated that the applicant was employed as a full time temporary accountant from August 2016 to December 2016 which was managed through Randstad. The letter further stated that the applicant started to work as a permanent employee with Veolia in April 2017 on a minimum of 38 hours. [22] The confirmation of employment letter then stated that some of the responsibilities the applicant undertook during both periods of employment included the following: Assist in budgeting and forecasting Commercial analysis & reporting Accounting Month-End General ledger maintenance Examining operating costs and income & expenditure of various 'waste' divisions Preparing performance to budget report reports for divisional supervisors and managers Profit and Loss and Balance Sheet reconciliations Reconciliation between financial reporting systems Preparation and submission of tax credits for the ATO Assistance in the audit function Liaising with external business partners to ease decision making for managers Liaising with suppliers and internal management Investigating invoices and liaising with accounts payable team Training finance and non-finance employees on ERP (SAP) and internal controls Ad hoc analysis where required [23] Also provided to the Tribunal was a letter dated 20 July 2022 from Mr Richard Hesketh Head of Workplace Relations at Veolia (the second confirmation of employment letter). The letter stated that Mr Hesketh has been in the position of Head of Workplace Relations with Veolia since July 2018. Mr Hesketh confirmed that he is aware that the applicant worked with Veolia during the 2 employment periods for 38 hours a week. Further, Mr Hesketh confirmed that he had reviewed the confirmation of employment letter from Mr Moore and confirm that the contents of the letter and the duties listed are correct. He also stated that Mr Moore ceased to work for Veolia in October 2017, but the applicant continues his work as an accountant with Veolia until 26 October 2018. Mr Hesketh then stated that he can confirm that the applicant performed the duties as listed in ANZSCO 22111 Accountant 221111 up until he resigned in October 2018. [24] Also provided to the Tribunal were a number of references in relation to the applicant’s work as an Accountant at Veolia and with his other employers. The reference dated 27 August 2019 from Ms Lisa Thomson who was the Human Resources Advisor at Veolia from 2017 to 2018 (the 2019 reference) also listed the duties carried out by the applicant during both periods of employment. The reference also stated that the duties of the applicant were in line with the usual complexities of an Accountant. The 2019 work reference further stated that due to the scale of Veolia most accounting roles were referred to as: Assistant Accountants, Finance Managers or Commercial Managers, however, the titles did not reflect the individual duties. All incumbents including the applicant, were required to be tertiary qualified, hold professional memberships and be willing to undertake post tertiary study. The reference also stated that the clerical roles were all entitled: Accounts Payable Officer, Accounts Receivable Officer and Billing Officer. [25] The duties listed in the 2019 work reference as being undertaken by the applicant are as follows: Month-End Accounting Processes Preparing, reviewing and entering accrual and journals for the weekly and month end processes Monthly, Quarterly and Annual Reporting Preparing and submitting Fuel Tax Credits (FTC) as per ATO requirements Assist the senior managers in Budgeting and Forecasting for the Victorian Business Reconciliation of the balance sheet GLs Taking up monthly accruals for the Victorian 'Waste' business division Journaling costs intra-company, between different business divisions (within the 'Waste' business) Liaising with Internal and External Stakeholders Assisting in Internal and External Audit processes Provide training to staff on computer-based Accounting Systems such as SAP R3 and SAP S4 HANA. Monthly Invoicing function, investigate and approve charges billed and pass for payment to accounts payable and clerks through SAP in National Office. Actively work with business units to improve business processes and performance; travelling to Operational sites to work closely with frontline management Challenge business practices. Develop new systems and processes; train and empower managers and their teams. [26] The Tribunal has taken into consideration the  tasks  listed under the Unit Group 2211 Accountants in ANZSCO and that in relation to the occupation Accountant (General) ANZSCO states that an occupant in the position: ‘provides services relating to compliance based financial reporting, auditing, insolvency and accounting information systems; and advises on associated record-keeping requirements.’ On the evidence set out above the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant during both periods of employment with Veolia performed most of the duties of the nominated occupation Accountant (General). The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant worked in the nominated occupation during both periods of employment for a total of 21 months. [27] On the above the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had been employed in Australia in the nominated skilled occupation for at least 12 months but less than 36 months in the relevant period.”: Farooq (Migration) [2022] AATA 2930.

> See also, GILL (Migration) [2017] AATA 2019, [19] <https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/2019.html>.


[G] Delay in Processing - Visa Decisions - Administrative and Judicial Reviews

> "So, what to do when there’s an unreasonable delay in Immigration or a tribunal making a decision. One option is to write to the global feedback unit1 drawing attention to what the court authorities say about a delay. Ultimately if there is no response, one can bring court action to force a decision by way of mandamus. One cannot get an injunction to force Immigration to make a positive decision but one can get an injunction to force Immigration to make the decision, ‘within a reasonable time”. ... Regrettably, in many areas of migration law including before the review tribunals, decisions can be left in the queue for years. A well crafted letter or submission could be used to stir a dormant case into action. ... See https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/form-listing/Pages/Registered-migration-agents-enquiry-and-feedback.aspx ...". 


[H] Immigration New Zealand - Operations Manual


[I] Ministerial Intervention

> "18. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) but has decided not to refer the matter. The Tribunal notes that the applicant can still make a request directly to the Minister, using the letter he has already prepared that clearly articulates his case.": Gulab (Migration) [2023] AATA 4172.

> "55. It is anticipated that [the applicant], his close and extended family members in Australia as well as members of the community may wish to lodge documentation in support of this referral. The Tribunal notes [the applicant] acknowledged at the hearing that it is up to him - ideally with professional advice from an immigration lawyer/registered migration agent or a community organisation such as [Charity] or the [Community group] - to collate appropriate robust evidence in support of this referral to the  Ministerial intervention .": 2101274 (Migration) [2021] AATA 383.

> "57. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s case and the Ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in PAM3 ‘Minister’s Guidelines on Ministerial Powers (s345, s351, s391, s417, s454 and s501J)’. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal refers this case to the Department for the Minister’s attention. The Tribunal respectfully recommends that the Minister exercises the powers pursuant to s.351 of the Act with regard to the applicant.": Fry (Migration) [2018] AATA 5828.

> "28. Having regard to the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that Ms Prudenciado’s circumstances are capable of meeting the criteria extracted above for referral to the Minister, namely, there would be exceptional economic and other benefits from allowing Ms Prudenciado and her family who are already in Australia to remain here. As such, the Tribunal considers that Ms Prudenciado’s situation may involve exceptional circumstances and the Tribunal therefore considers it appropriate to request that this case be brought to the attention of the Minister in order for him to consider whether to exercise his discretionary intervention powers under s.351 of the Act.": Prudenciado (Migration) [2018] AATA 1046.

> "44. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not satisfy cl.491.214 and it must affirm the decision under review to refuse to grant him a subclass 491 visa. The Tribunal must also affirm the decisions to refuse to grant subclass 491 visas to the second and third named applicants (the applicant’s wife and daughter) as it finds that they are unable to satisfy the secondary visa criteria in cl.491.311 requiring them to be members of the family unit of a person who holds a subclass 491 visa, and there is no evidence that they meet the primary visa criteria in their own right. 45. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicants have elected not to request the Tribunal to refer their case for  Ministerial intervention  pursuant to s.351 of the Act, but notes that it remains open to them to make such a request directly if they wish to do so in future.": Chowdhury (Migration) [2024] AATA 1011.


[J] Procedures, Processes

> Chapters 1-6: <https://web.archive.org/web/20220322022520/https://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Procedural-Law-Guide_Chapters-1-6.pdf>. 

> Chapters 7-11: <https://web.archive.org/web/20220322022601/https://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Procedural-Law-Guide_Chapters-7-11.pdf>. 

> see also, other versions indexed at <https://www.art.gov.au/about-us/accountability-and-reporting/former-administrative-appeals-tribunal/aat-freedom-information-disclosure-log>. 

> Former AAT Disclosure Log: <http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/foi-disclosure-log>. 

> Part 1: Pre-hearing: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231111161232/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-PLG-Part-1.pdf>. 

> Part 2: Conduct of Review: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231101211328/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-PLG-Part-2.pdf>. 

> Part 3: The Hearing: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231111161241/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-PLG-Part-3.pdf>. 

> Part 4: Post Hearing and Decision: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231111161246/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-PLG-Part-4.pdf>. 

> Part 5: Miscellaneous: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231101211328/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-PLG-Part-5.pdf>. 

> Commentary: Skilled Visas: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231101211328/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Skilled.pdf>. 

> Commentary: Procedural: <https://web.archive.org/web/20231101211328/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Procedural.pdf>. 

> Commentary: Character (non-MRD): <https://web.archive.org/web/20231111161314/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Non-MRD.pdf>. 

> Commentary: Family: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230322125244/http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-Family.pdf>. 

> Chapter 1: Starting a Review: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_1.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029042800/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_1.pdf>. 

> Chapter 2: Conduct of a Review: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_2.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029052031/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_2.pdf>. 

> Chapter 2, Part 2: Part 5 Migration Act: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_2_Part_2.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029042939/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_2_Part_2.pdf>. 

> Chapter 3: Procedural Fairness: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_3.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029042914/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_3.pdf>. 

> Chapter 4: Decisions: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_4.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029043354/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_4.pdf>. 

> Chapter 5: Restrictions on Disclosing and Publishing Information: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_5.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/6DWP-PTJ4>. 

> Chapter 6: Constitution and Reconstitution: <https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_6.pdf>, archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20251029044109/https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Handbook_ART_Legal_Procedure_Chapter_6.pdf>. 


[K] Regional Visas