很多485的拒签都是由于移民官认为申请人的2个课程不closely related 不满足485.213(b) each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation的要求。志杰移民认为最近的一个法院判例 Tobon v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 2208 (26 September 2014) 可以帮助大家解决这个方面的疑惑，也是以后解决此类拒签问题的利器。在讨论 diploma of HR 和 civil engineer 是否相关的问题上 Manousaridis 法官判决移民局和MRT败诉， 他是这么理解这个问题的 第一… This implies that the Tribunal construed cl.485.213(b) as requiring that the skills, or at least a substantial proportion of the skills for which a diploma is awarded are skills that can only be used in the nominated skilled occupation.On my reading of cl.485.213(b), there is no warrant for such a construction… 也就是申请所学的课程并没有要求大多数应用于提名专业上。
第二 PAM 关于这个定义不符合法律要求 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 qualification/s are directly transferable to the nominated occupation, in terms of both subject matter and the level of qualification at which those skills were obtained…those words do not reflect an accepted construction of cl.485.213(b)..
第三 如果这个课程的大部分内容和提名专业的ANZSCO定义某一技能对应就可以认为紧密相关 。If all or a substantial part of a diploma results in skills that form part of the skill set of the nominated skilled occupation, cl.485.213(b) would be satisfied…That a diploma results in conferring skills, all or a substantial part of which form part of the skill set of the nominated occupation, is sufficient to establish a close relation between the diploma and the nominated skilled occupation…
我们志杰移民认为，有了这个法院判例我们有信心赢得多数的关于closely related 485.213 问题的拒签case.
又一个最近的案例
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2015/115.html
- Of course, it is ultimately a matter for the primary decision-maker and, on a statutory review, the Tribunal, to decide whether Mr Talha’s Australian studies are “closely related” to his nominated skilled occupation. But in carrying out the evaluative exercise it is critical that the whole of Mr Talha’s Australian studies be compared with the whole of his nominated occupation, as established in previous decisions of the Court, including Dhillon at [20] per Allsop CJ, Murphy and Pagone J, Constantino at [26] per Jacobson J and Bhanot at [29] per Perry J. As the Full Court stated in Dhillonat [20]:
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]. That is what the Tribunal did. The Tribunal informed itself about the nature of the skilled occupation of pastry cook by considering the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) and compared that with the course content submitted by Mr Dhillon for the units undertaken by him in the business management course completed at the Nova Institute. At [91] the Tribunal considered that the requirement of a qualification being “closely related” to the nominated occupation required that the relationship between the skills gained in the qualification were more than merely complementary to the occupation or that the skills could be used in that occupation. The Tribunal did not ask itself an incorrect question when determining whether the qualifications relied upon by Mr Dhillon were closely related to his nominated profession of pastry cook (see Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 848, [21], [24], [38]) and on the materials its finding was open to the Tribunal.