Migration (English Language Requirements for Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) Visas) Instrument 2025

The instrument introduces several defined terms that are essential to understanding its operation. “English test component” means each of listening, reading, writing and speaking (s 4). Every test score requirement in the schedules includes both an overall or average band score and separate component scores. “Average band score”, “overall band score” and “total band score” are all defined as a score calculated from the makeup of the scores received for each of the English test components (s 4). While the definitions are similar, each term is used for different tests: IELTS uses “average band score”, CELPIP General, LANGUAGECERT Academic, MET, OET and PTE Academic use “overall band score”, and TOEFL iBT uses “total score”. The distinction matters because the threshold numbers are not interchangeable. The term “visa applicant” is defined to mean an applicant for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa in the Post Vocational Education Work stream or the Post Higher Education Work stream of the Subclass 485 visa (s 4). This definition excludes other streams of the Subclass 485, such as the Graduate Work stream, which may be covered by other instruments or regulations. The instrument creates two tiers of score requirements. The primary tier applies to all applicants who are not exempt and not Hong Kong or BN(O) passport holders. The second tier applies specifically to Hong Kong passport holders and British National (Overseas) passport holders: schedules 2 and 4 set lower overall and component scores. For example, for IELTS Academic the general requirement is an average band score of at least 6.5 with at least 5.5 in each component, whereas for Hong Kong and BN(O) passport holders the requirement is an average band score of at least 6.0 with at least 5.0 in each component (Schedules 1 and 2). A critical concept is the transitional regime in Part 2, section 10 and Schedules 3 and 4. This regime applies only to tests “undertaken before the day on which this instrument commences” (s 10(1)(b)(iii)(B)). The transitional schedules use test names that correspond to some tests in the primary schedules but with different score benchmarks. For example, the transitional test “Cambridge English: Advanced test (CAE)” requires an overall band score of at least 176 with at least 162 in each component, whereas the primary schedule lists “C1 Advanced” with the note “not accepted”. This means that a CAE test taken before 7 August 2025 may be acceptable under the transitional provisions, but a C1 Advanced test taken on or after that date will not be accepted at all. Similarly, the transitional PTE Academic requires an overall band score of at least 57 and component scores ranging from 42 to 51, while the primary PTE Academic requires an overall band score of at least 55 with component scores ranging from 39 to 42. The transitional thresholds are generally higher than the primary thresholds for PTE, but lower for some other tests. The instrument also introduces the concept of “specified evidence” under section 10: for transitional tests, the applicant must have achieved the test score in a single sitting unless the test was an OET (s 10(1) final proviso). The instrument does not explicitly state whether non transitional tests must be from a single sitting, but the general requirement under subparagraph 485.212(1)(a)(ii) of the Regulations and the practical administration of visa applications typically requires a single test result. Finally, the instrument defines no fewer than three related but distinct terms for aggregate scores (average, overall, total) which may cause confusion for applicants and agents who are not familiar with the specific terminology of each testing system.

The instrument directly affects all applicants for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa who are lodging an application on or after 7 August 2025. This includes international graduates of Australian educational institutions who have completed a vocational or higher education qualification and who seek to work in Australia temporarily after their studies. The instrument applies to two specific streams of the Subclass 485: the Post Vocational Education Work stream and the Post Higher Education Work stream (s 4 definition of “visa applicant”). Applicants in other streams such as the Graduate Work stream (which is for graduates of specific courses) or the Second Post Study Work stream are not within the scope of this instrument and will be governed by other legislative instruments or provisions. The instrument also indirectly affects a range of actors. English language test providers listed in section 6 will see demand for their tests continue or shift depending on the difficulty of the required scores. Migration agents and education counsellors must update their advice to reflect the new score thresholds and the transitional provisions. Australian employers who hire Subclass 485 visa holders will be affected by the potential reduction in the pool of eligible graduates if the higher scores deter some applicants or result in more test failures. Higher education and vocational education providers who market courses to international students may see enrolment decisions influenced by the English language requirements for post study work rights. The instrument creates a distinction between two categories of visa applicants based on nationality. Applicants who hold a valid passport from Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom or the United States of America are exempt from the English language proficiency requirement entirely (s 9). This exemption significantly reduces their compliance burden and cost of applying for the visa. Applicants who hold a Hong Kong passport or a British National (Overseas) passport benefit from lower required test scores. This concession appears to be part of broader Australian immigration policy measures for Hong Kong residents. For general applicants, the instrument imposes a higher compliance burden than the previous 2024 instrument, particularly in requiring component scores that must each be met. An applicant who achieves the required overall band but fails one component must sit the test again. This increases both the financial cost of test fees and the time cost of preparation and re testing. The transitional provisions affect persons who took an English test before 7 August 2025 but have not yet lodged their visa application. Those persons can rely on the transitional schedules if they meet the different score requirements. However, the transitional schedules are not simply the old 2024 requirements; they are a distinct set of scores that may be more or less generous depending on the test. For example, the transitional PTE Academic scores are higher than the new primary PTE scores, so an applicant who took PTE before commencement and achieved a score of 57 (the transitional overall) would have exceeded the new primary requirement of 55, but must still meet the component scores which are also higher in the transitional schedule. This could disadvantage some applicants who achieved lower component scores under the previous regime. The instrument affects test administrators as well. The C1 Advanced test (which is the same as the Cambridge English: Advanced test under a new name) is not accepted for new applications but is accepted under the transitional name for pre commencement tests. This discrepancy may cause confusion and administrative load for test reporting and visa processing.

The primary duty imposed by this instrument is on the visa applicant to provide evidence that they meet the English language proficiency requirements specified in clause 485.212 of the Regulations. The instrument specifies the tests and scores that constitute compliance with that clause. An applicant must ensure that the test they take is one of the nine listed in section 6. They must achieve the required overall or average band score and, separately, the required scores in each of the four English test components. The instrument does not allow an applicant to combine scores from multiple test sittings; the required score must be achieved in one test, except that the transitional provision explicitly requires a single sitting for non OET tests (s 10(1)). For new applications, the test must be taken within one year before the date of the visa application (s 8). This one year window is a strict condition; a test taken 13 months before application will not satisfy the requirement. The instrument also imposes a duty on the applicant to provide correct evidence. For transitional tests, the evidence must show that the test was undertaken before the commencement date (s 10(1)(b)(iii)(B)). The applicant carries the burden of proving compliance; the Department of Home Affairs does not have a duty to seek further information if the evidence is deficient. The instrument confers several rights on visa applicants. The right to choose from any of the nine specified English language tests (s 6). The right to benefit from the passport exemption if they hold a qualifying passport from Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, the UK, or the USA (s 9). The right to apply the lower score thresholds if they hold a Hong Kong or BN(O) passport (Schedules 2 and 4). The right to rely on a pre commencement test if it meets the transitional scores in Schedules 3 or 4 (s 10). The instrument does not grant any right to a waiver of the English language requirement for any other category of applicant. There is no provision for discretion by the Minister or delegate to accept a lower score or a different test on compassionate or other grounds. The instrument also does not provide any right to review of a decision that the English language requirement is not satisfied; review rights are governed by the Migration Act 1958 and the Regulations separately. In terms of rights of test takers, the instrument does not regulate the conduct of test providers. An applicant who fails the test has no right against the provider under this instrument. The instrument also does not impose any duty on the Department to accept a test result that was valid on the date of application but later expired during processing; the requirement is that the test was taken within one year before the application, not that it remains valid at the time of decision. This is a subtle but important distinction: the applicant’s duty is to have taken the test within the one year window, and once that duty is satisfied, the test result does not need to be current at decision time. The instrument also does not require the applicant to provide the test certificate at the time of application; it only requires that the visa application be “accompanied by evidence” for transitional tests (s 10(1)(b)). For new tests, the general regulation requires evidence, but the instrument does not prescribe the form.

The instrument itself does not create any civil or criminal penalties. It is a legislative instrument made under the Migration Regulations, and its enforcement mechanism is indirect: failure to comply with the specified English language requirements results in the visa application being refused under clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The instrument sets out what is required to satisfy that clause; if an applicant does not meet the specified test and scores, or does not hold an exempt passport, the delegate must find that the requirements of clause 485.212 are not met and refuse the visa. The decision to refuse is a reviewable decision under the Migration Act 1958, typically by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or, for migration decisions, the Migration Division of the AAT. An applicant who is refused can seek merits review, but the tribunal will assess whether the instrument’s requirements were correctly applied. If the applicant provided false evidence of English language test results, they may be subject to the general migration fraud provisions under the Migration Act 1958, including potential cancellation of any visa granted and a bar on future applications. Those penalties are not contained in this instrument but are relevant to non compliance. The instrument also does not impose any obligations on test providers. A test provider that issues incorrect scores or fraudulent certificates is not regulated under this instrument; such conduct would be dealt with under other laws, including the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) for fraud. Enforcement of the instrument’s requirements lies with the Department of Home Affairs processing officers who assess visa applications. They have the authority to verify test results with the provider directly. If a discrepancy is found, the application may be refused on the basis that the evidence does not meet the requirements. The instrument requires that the test score be “achieved” within the specified period; it does not require that the test result be valid or current at the time of decision, but the score must have been actually achieved. If the Department suspects that the test result was tampered with or obtained improperly, it can seek further evidence and may refuse the application. The instrument’s transitional provisions impose an additional verification burden: for pre commencement tests, the Department must check that the test was taken before 7 August 2025 and that the scores meet the transitional thresholds. This may lead to delays in processing if the evidence is not clear. The instrument does not provide any discretion to waive the requirements even in compelling circumstances. An applicant who misses the one year window by even one day cannot rely on that test. This strict approach may result in refused applications and subsequent visa cancellations if the applicant is on a bridging visa. The costs of non compliance are high for the applicant: not only the visa application fee but also the time and expense of retaking a test and reapplying. There is no penalty provision in the instrument for an applicant who inadvertently submits an incorrect test score, but if the error is discovered before the visa is granted, it will simply lead to a refusal. If the visa is granted and later found to have been obtained based on incorrect English language evidence, the visa may be cancelled under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958 for non compliance with a prescribed requirement.

The instrument is made under clause 485.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which in turn is made under the Migration Act 1958. The instrument does not operate in isolation; it sits within a broader framework of visa criteria. The English language requirement is one of several criteria that must be satisfied for a Subclass 485 visa. Other criteria include age, Australian study requirement, and health and character requirements. The instrument does not override any other provision of the Regulations or the Act. It specifies the tests and scores for subparagraphs 485.212(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and paragraph 485.212(1)(b). If the Regulations are amended, the instrument may need to be remade or updated to remain consistent. The instrument repeals the previous 2024 instrument (LIN 24/021) in full (Schedule 5). This means that from 7 August 2025, only the 2025 instrument applies to new applications and, via transitional provisions, to some pre commencement tests. The repeal does not affect applications already made before that date; those will be assessed under the 2024 instrument as it applied at the time (assuming no savings provision, but the instrument applies only to applications made on or after commencement). The instrument does not interact directly with the Migration Act 1958 in a substantive way, but it is a legislative instrument subject to the Legislation Act 2003. It was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation and is subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after tabling. It also interacts with the acts and regulations governing the conduct of the named English language tests. For example, the IELTS test is governed by agreements between the test providers and the Department. The instrument does not grant the Department power to oversee test administration; it only accepts results from approved tests. There is no provision in the instrument for the Minister to add or remove tests by notice or instrument; amendments would require a formal legislative instrument. The instrument interacts with the corporations law and consumer law indirectly to the extent that test providers must deliver results accurately, but no specific cross reference is made. The instrument also interacts with the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and the Migration Regulations relating to other visa subclasses, but only to the extent that an English language test result used for a Subclass 485 application might also be used for another visa application. The instrument does not prevent an applicant from using the same test result for multiple visa applications if the other visa classes accept it. The instrument’s transitional provisions also interact with the principles of retrospectivity. By allowing pre commencement test scores to be accepted, the instrument gives some effect to past conduct, which is a limited form of retrospective operation. However, the instrument does not invalidate any application made before commencement; it simply sets the rules for applications made after commencement.

This instrument is a new legislative instrument, the Migration (English Language Requirements for Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) Visas) Instrument 2025. It does not amend any earlier instrument other than by repealing its predecessor. It has not been amended since its making on 5 August 2025. The instrument does not contain any explanatory statement or notes setting out the reasons for the changes from the 2024 instrument. Users must compare the text of the 2025 instrument with the repealed 2024 instrument (LIN 24/021) to understand specific differences. The instrument’s transitional provisions in section 10 and Schedules 3 and 4 are themselves a form of amendment history in that they preserve some earlier test benchmarks for a limited cohort. The instrument does not have an amendment history table because it is the initial instrument. Any future amendments would need to be made by a separate legislative instrument. The instrument is subject to automatic repeal under the Legislation Act 2003 if it is not remade within 10 years, but that is a general rule. The instrument’s authority is clause 485.212 of the Regulations, which may itself be amended or replaced, which would affect the instrument’s validity. Historically, the Subclass 485 English language requirements have been a frequent topic of change, with previous instruments raising or lowering scores. This instrument appears to continue that pattern. The instrument’s schedules use precise score levels that may be updated as test scoring scales change. For example, the CELPIP General test uses a score scale of 1 to 12; the required score of at least 6 in each component and overall 8 is a specific benchmark that could be adjusted in future instruments. The instrument does not create a mechanism for automatic adjustment; any change requires a new legislative instrument.

The source instrument does not mention any litigation history. No cases are cited in the text. This is typical for a legislative instrument; it does not record judicial decisions. However, the predecessor instrument (LIN 24/021) may have been the subject of litigation, but that is not within the source. A search of Australian case law is not permitted per the instructions; we can only rely on the source. Therefore, we cannot assert any litigation history. It is plausible that the English language requirements for Subclass 485 visas have been challenged in migration review tribunals on points such as the interpretation of “single sitting” or the calculation of scores, but the instrument provides no such information. Potential future litigation could arise from the transitional provisions. For instance, an applicant who took a test before commencement but fails to meet the transitional scores may argue that the instrument is invalid for failing to accommodate scores that would have been acceptable under the 2024 instrument. However, the instrument does not provide any savings or grandfathering for the 2024 scores. Another potential challenge could relate to the exclusion of the C1 Advanced test for new applications. A test provider or applicant might argue that the instrument is unreasonable or that the Minister did not consider relevant material in making the instrument. But such challenges would be brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or the common law, and would require a separate analysis. The instrument does not contain any statement of compatibility with human rights, so a legal challenge under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 is theoretically possible but unlikely to succeed as English language requirements are generally considered permissible. The instrument’s definition of “total band score” contains a typographical error (“form” instead of “from”), but that is unlikely to be the subject of litigation as the meaning is clear. Overall, the instrument itself does not provide any indication of its litigation history, and one must assume that as a routine legislative instrument it has not been the subject of reported judicial decisions. Any litigation under the instrument would likely be in the context of visa refusal appeals at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Several traps and complexities arise from this instrument that practitioners and applicants should watch for. First, the C1 Advanced test is listed in Schedule 1 as “not accepted” for the purpose of subparagraph 485.212(1)(a)(ii). This means that no main applicant can use a C1 Advanced test taken on or after 7 August 2025 to satisfy the English language requirement. However, the transitional Schedule 3 lists the “Cambridge English: Advanced test (CAE)” with a required overall band score of 176 and component scores of at least 162. The CAE test is essentially the same test as C1 Advanced but under an older name. An applicant who took the CAE test before 7 August 2025 can use it if they meet the transitional scores. But an applicant who took the same test after that date cannot use it at all. This distinction could catch unwary applicants who book a “Cambridge English: Advanced” test after commencement not realising it is now excluded. Second, the transitional test scores in Schedules 3 and 4 are not simply a continuation of the 2024 instrument scores; they are a distinct set of numbers. For example, the transitional PTE Academic overall requirement is 57, while the new primary requirement is 55. An applicant who took PTE before commencement and achieved an overall 56 would have met the new primary requirement but not the transitional requirement. Since the transitional provisions apply only to tests taken before commencement, such an applicant would need to rely on the transitional scores, and would fail. This seems unintuitive: a score that would be sufficient for a new application is not sufficient for a transitional application. The instrument does not allow the applicant to choose which schedule to apply; section 10(2) specifies that for pre commencement tests, the scores in Schedule 3 or 4 must be met. Third, the OET test scoring is expressed differently in the primary and transitional schedules. In Schedule 1, the OET requires an overall band score of at least 1310 and component scores in a range from 260 to 310. In Schedule 3 (transitional), the OET requires “a score of at least B for each English test component”. The OET uses grades A to E; a score of B is a different metric to the numeric 1310. An applicant who takes the OET after commencement must meet the numeric thresholds, but an applicant who took it before must meet the B grade threshold. The numeric threshold of 1310 is a scaled score, not a grade, and the conversion between grades and numeric scores is not provided in the instrument. Fourth, the one year period specified in section 8 applies to both new and transitional tests. For a person who took a test in early August 2024 and applies in early August 2025, the test is still within one year. But if the test was taken on 6 August 2024 and the application is made on 7 August 2025, that is one year and one day, and the test is invalid. The calculation requires exact date matching. Fifth, the instrument does not explicitly state that the test scores must be achieved in a single sitting for new applications. The transitional provision explicitly requires a single sitting (s 10(1) proviso). The absence of such a statement for new applications could be interpreted either way, but the practical administration by the Department has historically required a single test result. The instrument’s structure, with component scores, strongly implies that the scores must be from the same test. Sixth, the instrument defines “total band score” in section 4 with a typographical error: “calculated form the makeup”. This does not affect interpretation but could cause confusion in a strict reading. Seventh, the exemption for passport holders (s 9) is limited to citizens of those countries holding a valid passport of that country. A permanent resident of the United Kingdom who holds a passport from another country does not qualify for the exemption. The list is closed; no other countries are exempt, even if they are majority English speaking such as Malta, Singapore, or South Africa. Eighth, the instrument applies only to the two streams defined in s 4. Applicants for the Subclass 485 in any other stream (including the Graduate Work stream) cannot rely on this instrument; they must find the relevant English language requirements elsewhere in the Regulations or other instruments. Ninth, the transitional provisions do not apply to CELPIP General, LANGUAGECERT Academic, MET, or TOEFL iBT in the sense that those tests are not listed in Schedules 3 or 4. Only CAE, IELTS, OET, PTE, and TOEFL iBT are listed in Schedule 3; similarly in Schedule 4. So a person who took a CELPIP test before commencement cannot use it under transitional provisions; the test must be one of the five listed in Schedule 3 or 4. That is a significant trap for test takers who may assume all tests are transitional. Tenth, the instrument does not allow any combination of test results from different tests; the applicant must meet the requirements of one test entirely.

To comply with the English language requirements for a Subclass 485 visa application made on or after 7 August 2025, an applicant should follow these steps. First, determine whether the applicant holds a valid passport from Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, or the United States of America. If they do, they are exempt from the English language proficiency requirement under section 9 and need not provide any test evidence. They should still include a copy of the passport bio page with the application to establish the exemption. Second, if not exempt, determine whether the applicant holds a Hong Kong passport or a British National (Overseas) passport. If so, they will be assessed against the lower score thresholds in Schedule 2 (for tests taken on or after commencement) or Schedule 4 (for tests taken before commencement). Third, decide whether the English language test was taken before 7 August 2025 or on or after that date. If taken before, the test must be one of the tests listed in Schedule 3 or 4, and the applicant must achieve the scores set out in those schedules. The test result certificate must show the test date and the component scores. The test must have been taken within one year before the lodging of the visa application (s 8). For transitional tests, the further requirement of a single sitting applies unless it is an OET (s 10(1)). Fourth, if the test was taken on or after 7 August 2025, the applicant must choose from the nine tests listed in section 6. Note that the C1 Advanced test is not accepted; choose another test. For each test, the required scores are in Schedule 1 (general) or Schedule 2 (Hong Kong/BN(O)). The test must be taken within one year before the application (s 8). While not explicitly stated in the instrument, the applicant should assume that the scores must come from a single sitting. The evidence to provide with the visa application will depend on whether the test is transitional or new. For transitional tests, the application must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant has undertaken the test and achieved the required scores (s 10(1)(b)). This typically means a Test Report Form or certificate issued by the testing body. The certificate should be less than one year old on the date the application is lodged. For new tests, the instrument does not prescribe the form of evidence, but the general regulation requires documentary evidence. The applicant should provide the original test report or a certified copy. Fifth, the applicant should check the component scores carefully. It is not enough to meet the overall or average band score; each component must be at or above the specified minimum. For example, for IELTS General Training, an overall band of 6.5 is required, but also at least 5.5 in listening, reading, writing, and speaking. An applicant who scores 6.5 overall but gets a 5.0 in writing has not met the requirement. Sixth, plan the timing of the test carefully. The one year window is strict; a test taken more than 365 days before the visa application date is invalid. The test must be taken on a date that is within the year before the expected lodgement date. If the applicant needs to improve scores, they should allow sufficient time for multiple attempts within the year. Seventh, for Hong Kong and BN(O) passport holders, ensure that the passport is valid at the time of application and that the passport details match the identity of the test taker. The instrument does not require the passport to be current at the time of the test, but it is good practice. Eighth, avoid using the transitional provisions if the test was taken after commencement; it will not be accepted. Ninth, keep copies of all test results and any correspondence with testing bodies in case the Department requests further verification. Tenth, if the applicant is unsure which schedule applies, they should seek professional advice. The instrument is complex and small errors can lead to visa refusal. Finally, note that the instrument applies only to the English language requirement; all other visa criteria still need to be met. Compliance with this instrument is necessary but not sufficient for visa grant.