**Skills Assessment Criterion Change: Subclass 487 / 885 / 886

[Migration Help]

Changes introduced on 1 January 2010 required certain General Skilled Migration applicants to provide a skills assessment dated on or after 1 January 2010.

This is no longer the case.

Effective from today, 12 March 2010, onshore applicants for General Skilled Migration who are nominating a trade occupation in the following subclasses:

• Subclass 487 (Skilled - Regional Sponsored)
• Subclass 885 (Skilled - Independent)
• Subclass 886 (Skilled - Sponsored)

will be able to use an existing suitable skills assessment to lodge a valid visa application. That means that a skills assessment which pre-dates 1 January 2010 can be used.

DIAC has advised clients applying for either a subclass 487, 885 or 886 visa to confirm whether your existing skills assessment is suitable by contacting the department on 1300 364 613.

Further information can be found on DIAC's website - Changes to the skills assessment criterion for certain onshore General Skilled Migration applicants nominating a trade occupation—12 March 2010

MH

[Robert]

This also refers to changes introduced by Vetassess in January this year. Vetassess is insisting on 12 months work experience, whereas the prescribed clause in the migration regulation does not require this 12-month work experience for thsoe applicants who have completed their Australian edcucation within the last 6 months from the date of visa application.

I have raised this as an issue with Vetassess and will keep the readers of this forum informed of the outcome. I have also written to MIA to consider this as an issue of concern.

My concern to VETASSES:

'Thank you for the prompt response. With due respect, my view is that your requirement for one year employment experience for fresh graduates for offshore subclass 175 , within six months of their completion of their Australian education, is an imposition that is extra ordinary, well above what the Migration Regulation provides for. My understanding is that Vetassess is not a professional body regulating the entry standards for a particular occupation/profession, Vetassess requirement for one year employment experience for Subclass 175 offshore application within six months of their study completion may well be unlawful in that it is not congruent to migration regulation that carries force of law. Your insistence on a 12 months post-qualification employment experience is contrary to what is prescribed and allowed under an Act of parliament. Please let me reiterate the relevant regulatory criteria which reads as:

“ SCHEDULE2
Subclass 175 Skilled — Independent
175.21 Criteria to be satisfied at time of application
175.211
(1) If the applicant has nominated a skilled occupation which is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subclause, the applicant has been employed in the skilled occupation for at least 12 months in the period of 24 months ending immediately before the day on which the application was made.
(2) If the applicant has not nominated a skilled occupation as described in subclause (1):
(a) the applicant has been employed in a skilled occupation for at least 12 months in the period of 24 months ending immediately before the day on which the application was made; or
(b) the following requirements are met:
(i) the applicant satisfied the Australian study requirement in the period of 6 months ending immediately before the day on which the application was made;
`(ii) each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the skilled occupation is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation. (Emphasis and underline added by me). “

Clause 175.211(2)(b)(i)(ii) explicitly provides for a fresh graduate to apply for offshore application under the subclass 175 GSM within six months of the completion of their Australian education, without the 12 months work experience. We respectfully submit that under the principle of natural justice Vetasses should not be seen to override or prevent an applicant from exercising his or her entitlement to what is prescribed in legislation.
I would appreciate your early reconsideration."

Robert K Chelliah
rkc@austmigration.com.sg

[Robert]

Further to the above posting, Kevin Lane from the Migration Institute of Australia has emailed me saying he sees some merits in my argument and has agreed to take it upo with DIAC. He has also advised me not to expect quick fix solutions.

If any of the readers of this forum are affected by this vetassess decsion to nullify 175.211(2)(b)(i)and (ii) , ie. eligible to apply within 6 months of graduation and who has been prevented by Vetassess requirement of 12 months work experience and still remain within 6 months please contact me for a submission to DIAC.

Robert K Chelliah
rkc@austmigration.com.sg

[Sheelagh Blanckenberg]

Thanks for the update Robert.

It is pleasing to see the MIA is going to take this on board. It does not seem right that a generalist assessing authority like Vetassess can make a call like this. If it was a professional association like CPA, ICAA, ACS etc introducing such a requirement it would be understandable. Vetassess however, requiring an economist for example to have a degree plus one years work experience seems to me to be beyond the scope of the organisations assessing ability.

How do they know an Australian economist requires one years work experience before they are skilled as an economist? Did Vetassess get advice from an economist association? If so, surely this association should then be the assessing authority?

It is ludicrous. Unfortunately DIAC are getting their way and imposing this on Vetassess so I dont think anything much is going to change, no matter who bleats or challenges Vetassess's authority.

[Robert]

Hi Sheelagh,

It is unfortunate my client is entitled to sc 175 without MRT appeal right.
Not to loose the 6 months time frame. by 2/6/2010, and not withstanding whatever the outcome of the lobyying be, she has instructed me to submit the application even if it is with a negative Vetassess application, and seek the cooperation of DIAC to withhold decision making until the issue is resolved with DIAC policy unit/ombudsman/and whatever appeal right we may excercise. Desperados will do any deviant acts!

I have written to Lorenzo Bocabellato seek his advise and see if he will do a probono or no-win- no- fees basis, with affordable fees.

What the legislators have decreed little Napoloeons should not squash


Robert K Chelliah

[Sheelagh Blanckenberg]

Good idea approaching Lorenzo. If anyone would take this on it is likely to be him. Please keep us posted on what happens with your client.