Lu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 293

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. The below reasons were delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing on 4 February 2026. This written version has been prepared with the assistance of the Court recording.
2. This is an application made by Ms Huiying Lu in which she asks the Court to review a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 10 January 2023. In that decision, the Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision made by a delegate of the minister to refuse her application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa (the Subclass 187 visa). The Tribunal found the applicant did not satisfy the criteria which governed the award of the visa. Those criteria are set out in cl 187.234 in sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
3. In its reasons for decision (that are reproduced in exhibit one (the court book) at pp 165ff), the Tribunal focused on the requirements in cl 187.234(c) that at the time of the application for the visa:
   • Firstly, she must have the qualifications listed in ANZSCO (that is the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations) as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation. The occupation in question was Valuer, which is dealt with at item 224512. The Tribunal properly noted the relevant standard might be met in the alternative by an appropriate period of work experience. That is the requirement in

cl 187.234(c)(ii); and * A further requirement in cl 187.234(c) that she had been employed in the occupation for at least three years on a full-time basis and at the level of skill required for the occupation. 4. The applicant provided academic transcripts and course descriptions for the courses she had studied at certificate, bachelor's and master's level. The Tribunal examined that information with reference to the requirements in ANZSCO and compared it with the syllabus of a property course offered by the University of Technology Sydney which the applicant had not studied but which the Tribunal accepted would meet the requirements.[1] The Tribunal was impressed by the fact that the property course repeatedly referred to property. The Tribunal's findings on the comparison are found at [30] to [31]. The Tribunal said:

30. On the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Economics qualification from Jiangsu University including the subjects listed in the Bachelor score sheet as being completed by the applicant are such that the qualification is at the level of education required for the competent performance of the tasks required by ANZSCO for the nominated occupation of Valuer nor are they directly relevant to the tasks listed in ANZSCO for the nominated occupation with the exception of one task which is referred to above. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's qualification of Bachelor of Economics is the qualification listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation

31. On the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Accounting qualification from Macquarie University including the subjects listed in the academic transcript as being completed by the applicant are such that the qualification is at the level of education required for the competent performance of the tasks required by ANZSCO for the nominated occupation nor are they directly relevant to the tasks listed in ANZSCO for the occupation of Valuer. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's qualification of Master of Accounting (CPA Accounting) is the qualification listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation.

1. The Tribunal thereafter went on to consider whether the applicant could satisfy the requirements through 5 years of appropriate work experience. After reviewing the applicant's résumé, the Tribunal found at [35]:

On the information on the Departmental and Tribunal files and on the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant worked as a Valuer from April 2012 to July 2018. Even if the Tribunal accepts that from July 2018 to the date of the Subclass 187 visa application on 6 October 2019, that the applicant worked as a Valuer for BRE, that period of time is only 15 months. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of the visa application the applicant had 5 years of relevant experience as a Valuer to substitute for formal qualifications in the nominated occupation of Valuer.

1. The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the requirement in cl 187.234(c)(iii), explaining at [36]:

Further ... the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of the visa application the applicant has been employed in the occupation of Valuer for at least 3 years on a full time basis and at the level of skill required for the occupation of Valuer.

1. That conclusion was apparently justified with reference to the résumé which refers to the applicant working part-time in real estate roles in the period prior to her application while she studied part-time.
2. I come now to the application for judicial review.
3. There is a single ground of review in which the applicant contends the Tribunal's decision was illogical and was therefore unreasonable. That claim focuses on the Tribunal's analysis of the comparison between her qualifications and experience and the requirements in ANZSCO.
4. I explained the concept of jurisdictional error to the applicant at the outset of the hearing. She said she drafted the grounds of review herself, which suggests she had some appreciation of the concept, although in her oral submissions she said she did not have a lawyer and was not able to talk about jurisdictional error as such.
5. The substance of her submission was that the Tribunal's analysis of her qualifications and experience was superficial. She was critical of the way the Tribunal relied on course names when making its comparison. She pointed out she had since completed a specialist property course and discovered there was significant overlap or repetition of what she had already studied.
6. I also asked the applicant about the Tribunal's finding that she had not satisfied the requirement in cl 187.234(c)(iii) that she have three years of full-time work experience. She agreed she did 20 hours of work experience a week during the period before she made the application because she was studying at the same time. She said 20 hours was a full-time load. She subsequently claimed that she had an extended period of part-time working experience that cumulatively added up to 3 years' full-time experience.
7. Let me deal with the complaint that the comparison was superficial. A person who is familiar with the ways of educational institutions might hesitate before placing too much stock in the names and descriptions of courses in what amounts to promotional material provided by the institution. Many educational institutions repackage the same content in a variety of ways. That is not inevitably illegitimate: vocationally-oriented courses within the same general discipline often deal with the same general principles or content. The differences between those courses sometimes lies more in the marketing than the substance. But while that insight suggests a note of caution is appropriate when undertaking these comparisons, I cannot say a reasonable decision-maker could not have made the finding the Tribunal made in relation to

cl 187.234(c)(ii). It had a rational basis for doing so which it set out in its reasons. Whether another decision-maker would have delved deeper into the substance of the courses is not the issue. I cannot say the Tribunal's decision was so superficial as to be illogical. 8. The requirement as to work experience was not met for reasons the Tribunal explained. And while the applicant has said that she has undertaken a good deal of part-time work experience, the Tribunal makes clear that it was not satisfied that the work experience was sufficiently focused and appropriate. There is no reason to disrupt that finding on appeal. 9. It follows the ground is not made out. I should add that even if I were minded to find the analysis of the Tribunal was so superficial that it should be regarded as unreasonable, the applicant faces an insurmountable obstacle in the form of the requirement in cl 187.234(c)(iii). The applicant did not meet the requirement that she had to work full-time for a three-year period in the occupation prior to the application. 20 hours per week is not full-time work. 10. I should add the provision clearly contemplates the applicant working on a full-time basis and that periods of part-time work over a longer period do not appear to meet that requirement. 11. It follows the application for judicial review must be dismissed. 12. The minister has also made an application for costs in the fixed amount of $6,500. Ms Warren, who appeared for the minister, said that amount was well below the scale amount for matters which conclude at final hearing in sch 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) and is proportionate to the work undertaken in this matter. 13. I explained to the applicant that it is often the case that an award of costs is made against an unsuccessful party, but not always. I asked the applicant if she had anything to say about costs. The applicant said she did not object to an award of costs being made in the minister's favour, but she asked if the amount could be reduced. 14. I am satisfied an award of costs is appropriate in this case. While costs do not have to be awarded in every case, the minister has incurred expense in defending these proceedings and if those expenses are not met by the applicant, they are paid out of public monies. 15. I am also satisfied, having regard to work that has evidently been performed, that a fixed costs award in the amount of $6,500 is appropriate. Whether the minister chooses to recover that amount or enter an arrangement with respect to recovery is a matter for discussion elsewhere.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge McCabe delivered on 4 February 2026.

[1] The description provided for the skill level of Valuer can be found at: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, 2013, Version 1.2 (Catalogue No 1220.0, 26 June 2013) : See also the definition of skill level 1: at .