ENS 186 TRT 비자를 신청할 때 영어성적 PTE 기준 50점이 IELTS 기준으로 6.0 입니다. 물론 네가지 분야에 모두 50점 / 6.0 을 확보해야 합니다. 접수할 때 이미 영어성적을 제출해야 합니다.

Baker로서 ENS TRT 비자를 신청 (2020년 8월 15일) 했지만 영어성적이 제출이 안되어서 비자거절 (2021년 2월 18일) 됩니다. 약 6개월 만에 거절된 것으로 28일 만에 AAT를 제출해야 했을 것입니다. 그리고 2022년 3월 29일 영어성적을 제출하진 못했지만 일한 경력, 급여 및 세금자료  그리고 호주사회에 이바지한 것(?)을 토대로 장관탄원을 요청하지만 받아들이지 않습니다. (왜냐하면 받아 들여줄 그런 어떤 조건도 전혀 사실은 안되기 때문;  영어성적은 필수로 제출되어야 합니다. 몇몇 영어권 국가출신이나 또는 몇가지 예외조건은 있지만 일반적인 경우는 해당 사항이 없음.)  2022년 4월 7일 전화 통화 (통역사를 이용하면서)를 하면서 신청자의 입장을 이야기하지만 받아 들여지지 않습니다. 2022년 4월 19일 AAT에서 이민성 결정에 손을 들어줍니다. 결국 신청자의 AAT 어필에서도 패소당하고 맙니다.

결론적으로 사실  접수부터 승산이 없었던 케이스였다고 판단됩니다. (왜? 영어성적 준비가 안된 상태이기 때문) 그런데 제가 상담을 해 보면 이런 경우도 자신은 호주 거주 + 일을 할 목적으로 또는 한가닥 어떤 희망(?)을 갖고 접수를 합니다만 결론은 이렇게 나옵니다. 이렇게 결론이 나올 것을 알고 진행을 했다면 다소나마 실망이 적겠지만 그렇지 않고 실망도 클 것입니다.

이케이스는 제 케이스가 물론 아니에요. 저라면 그 실망감이라도 다소나마 줄여주기 위해서 이야기를 먼저 드렸지 싶습니다.

장관 탄원서 운운하지만 받아 주지 않았습니다 그러나 신청은 또 할 수 있지만 그 목적이 뭔지는 알고 해야합니다. 장관탄원과 영어성적 준비가 안된 것은 사실 제가 봐도 아무 관련이 없기 때문.

ENS 비자를 준비하시는 분들은 영어성적을 잘 준비하는 것이 좋겠습니다. 

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – temporary residence transition stream – baker – English language proficiency – sat specified test but did not achieve required score – work experience and integration into community – no discretion to waive requirement – request for referral for ministerial consideration not accepted – decision under review affirmed

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 February 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 21 August 2020. At the time of application, Class EN contained one subclass: Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme).

3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 186 visa are set out in Part 186 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria must meet the ‘Common criteria’, as well as the criteria of one of three alternative visa streams: the Temporary Residence Transition stream, the Direct Entry stream, or the Labour Agreement stream.

4. In the present case, the first named applicant (the applicant) is seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream, to work in the nominated position of Baker.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicant did not meet cl 186.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which required that the applicant had competent English, or was in a class of person specified by the Minister, at the time of application.

6. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal via telephone on 7 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

English language proficiency

9. At the time the visa application is made, an applicant in the Temporary Residence Transition stream must either have a defined level of English language proficiency, or be in a class of persons specified in a legislative instrument: cl 186.222. For visa made on or after 1 July 2017 the level required is competent English.

10. ‘Competent English’ is defined in reg 1.15C of the Regulations. A person will meet the definition if he or she either:

• undertook a specified language test in the three years preceding the visa application and achieved a specified score; or
• holds a specified passport.

11. In this instance, the relevant tests, scores and passports for these purposes are specified in legislative instrument IMMI 15/005.

12. Having reviewed the departmental file, the Tribunal determined that the applicant completed a Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic) on 11 August 2020, however he did not achieve the necessary score of 50 in each of the four components. The applicant sat earlier tests but did not achieve the required score on any attempt.

13. The applicant holds a passport issued by the Republic of Korea, which is not a passport specified in IMMI 15/005.

14. At the time of the visa application, there were no exemptions to the English language requirement specified by the Minister.

15. On 29 March 2022, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant’s representative. The submissions acknowledged that the applicant did not achieve the necessary test scores, however he sought a favourable outcome in recognition of his work experience and integration into the Australian community. (전혀 appeal 받아 줄 항목은 아님 ㅠ) 

16. The applicant provided an Australian Taxation Office income statement, reporting his income for the 2020-2021 financial. He also supplied payslips and a notice of assessment and letters of support from his employer, a friend and church pastor. (급여자료 및 세금 자료 그리고 친구들 목사님 편지 같은 그런 것으로 영어성적을 대체할 수 없음)

17. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal does not have the discretion to remit the application for compassionate or other reasons. It must apply the law to the circumstances of the case. In this case, the applicant does not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa. Clause 186.222 is not met.(반드시 법 즉 영어성적이 제출되어야 한다는 법이 적용되어야 한다. 다시 말해 어떤 것, 경력, 세금, 급여, 누구의 편지 등 아무것도 예외 될 수 없음; 단호함)

18. At the hearing, the applicant’s representative made a request for the matter to be flagged for the possible exercise of the Minister’s discretion under s.351 of the Act. Having considered the guidelines, I do not consider the matter suitable for referral to the Minister. (장관탄원도 요청하지만 AAT 심판관은 전혀 받아주지 않음; 애초에 관련이 없기 때문)

19. I note that the applicant is not precluded from making a request for ministerial intervention upon receipt of this merits review decision. (장관탄원을 그럼에도 한다면 막을 방법은 없다고 AAT 심판관은 보고 있음)

20. The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 186 visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream. No claims have been made in respect of the other visa streams. As the requirements that must be met by a person seeking the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream have not been met, the decision under review must be affirmed.

21. As the applicant does not satisfy the primary criteria, I must find that the second named applicant does not satisfy the secondary criteria as required by cl.186.311.

DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visas.

AAT 케이스 전문보기 

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335) (2002년 2월 부터)

신순철