Migration (Evidence of Functional English Language Proficiency) Instrument 2025

The instrument is short and conceptually focused. Its principal concepts are functional English as a statutory criterion, prescribed evidence, approved language tests and their minimum scores, temporal validity of test scores, and specific educational or passport-based alternatives.

• Functional English and prescribed evidence: The instrument operates solely as the specification of “prescribed evidence” for the statutory concept of “functional English” under paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (s 6 opening). It does not define functional English itself; the instrument refers users to subsection 5(2) of the Act for the meaning of the substantive term (s 4 note).
• Tests and components: The instrument defines “English test components” to mean listening, reading, speaking and writing (s 4). It therefore limits test-based evidence to tests that measure all four components (s 6(c)(i)). The instrument lists tests by name in Schedule 1 and in s 7 (for transitional pre-commencement tests) and assigns minimum scores by column type: “average band score”, “overall band score” or “total band score” as those labels appear in Schedule 1 (Schedule 1 header; s 4 definitions for score-terms).
• Temporal rules: For tests relied upon under s 6(c), the test must have been undertaken either in the 12 months immediately before the application or on or after the day of the application (s 6(c)(ii)(A)-(B)). Section 7 makes special provision for tests undertaken before this instrument commenced: those tests are accepted only where they were undertaken both (a) in the 12 months prior to the application and (b) before the date this instrument commenced; and s 7 specifies the minimum scores that apply to those pre-commencement tests (s 7(1)-(5)).
• Education-based alternatives: Section 6(a) recognises completion of specified levels of primary and secondary education where “all instruction was conducted in English”; s 6(b) recognises successful completion in Australia of at least one year of full-time (or equivalent part-time) study towards degrees/diplomas provided all instruction in the relevant institution(s) was in English. These are documentary routes rather than test results.
• Passport/citizenship alternative: Section 6(d) recognises citizens holding valid passports from five named countries (Canada; New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; United Kingdom; United States) as meeting the prescribed evidence requirement.

The instrument also makes explicit which instrument it replaces (Schedule 2). Definitions in s 4 standardise terms used in the instrument (for example, “relevant application” is defined broadly to include visa applications and some nomination approvals and references examples to relevant provisions of the Regulations). The instrument therefore functions as a narrow evidentiary rule-set rather than a substantive change to the Migration Act’s criteria; its effect is to set out, in administrative terms, what documents and test results will be treated as satisfying the evidentiary requirement for functional English.

Primary affected parties

• Visa applicants and persons making other “relevant applications” under the Migration Act who are required to satisfy a functional English criterion: the instrument defines “relevant application” to include visa applications and applications under s 140GB to approve a nomination (s 4 definitions). The instrument applies to relevant applications made on or after the commencement date (s 8(a)). Persons in that cohort must present one of the forms of prescribed evidence listed in s 6 or, if they rely on tests taken before commencement but within the specified window, satisfy s 7.
• Applicants who plan to rely on testing: anyone intending to meet functional English by test must take one of the tests listed in Schedule 1 (s 6(c) and Schedule 1) and meet the applicable minimum score. Tests must assess the four components identified in s 4 and be taken either within 12 months before the application or on/after the application date (s 6(c)(i)-(ii)). Applicants who took a test before the instrument commenced may instead rely on the s 7 thresholds if they meet s 7(1) timing constraints.
• Applicants relying on education qualifications: persons who completed all years of primary and at least three years of secondary education, or at least five years of secondary education where all instruction was in English, can present evidence of that schooling (s 6(a)(i)-(ii)). Also, persons who completed at least one year of full-time (or equivalent part-time) study in Australia toward specified tertiary awards where all instruction was in English can rely on s 6(b).
• Citizens of the five listed countries: persons who are citizens and hold a valid passport issued by Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom or United States can rely on s 6(d).

Secondary affected parties and decision impacts

• Test providers and educational institutions: the instrument explicitly lists particular tests (Schedule 1) and requires that instruction be “conducted in English” for educational evidence (s 6(a)-(b)). That channels demand to those tests and requires institutions providing documentary evidence to certify the language of instruction. The instrument thereby affects which providers’ credentials will be operationally acceptable to the Department when assessing functional English.
• Departmental officers and nominating decision-makers: the instrument supplies an evidentiary checklist for officials applying paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act. Officials will apply the instrument’s temporal rules, test lists and score thresholds when determining whether an applicant has provided prescribed evidence (s 6, s 7, s 8).
• Applicants with older test results: persons holding test results from before 7 August 2025 may be affected differently depending on timing, because s 7 provides a separate specification for tests undertaken before commencement and within 12 months before application (s 7(1)). The minimum scores in s 7 differ for some tests from the Schedule 1 minima.

Who does not benefit directly

• Holders of tests not listed: persons who have taken English tests not listed in Schedule 1 or s 7 cannot satisfy the “test” pathway under this instrument. The instrument does not create an open-ended approval process for other tests; evidence is limited to the listed tests and the education/passport alternatives in s 6.
• Persons relying on partial-component tests: the instrument requires the test to be “based on the English test components” (s 6(c)(i)), so tests that assess fewer than the four components (listening, reading, speaking, writing) will not qualify under the test pathway.

Timing and transitional exposure

• Applications lodged on or after 7 August 2025 will be subject to these rules (s 8(a)). Tests taken before the instrument commenced may still be accepted only if they were both (a) taken before the instrument commenced and (b) within 12 months immediately before the application; and the specified minima in s 7 apply (s 7(1)-(5)).

In short, the instrument directly affects applicants required to prove functional English, the institutions and test providers that furnish the accepted evidence, and the decision-makers who must apply these specified evidentiary standards in assessing eligibility under the Act and Regulations.

This instrument creates no standalone duties in the criminal or civil penalty sense; instead it prescribes what counts as recognised evidence for the statutory functional English requirement. The rights and obligations are therefore evidentiary and procedural in nature.

Duties implied for applicants

• Supply prescribed evidence: Applicants who must show functional English for a relevant application are obliged (in practical terms) to provide one of the recognised forms of evidence set out in s 6 , education records evidencing English-language instruction, evidence of successful Australian study, specified test results meeting Schedule 1 minima, or a valid passport and citizenship of one of the five listed countries (s 6(a)-(d)). The instrument operates as the roster of acceptable documents that applicants must present to satisfy paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act.
• Observe timing constraints for tests: If relying on test results, applicants must ensure the test falls within the temporal parameters: either the test was taken in the 12 months immediately before the application, or the test was taken on or after the day the application was made (s 6(c)(ii)). For tests taken before the instrument commenced, the applicant must ensure the test was taken before commencement and still within 12 months of the application to rely on the minima in s 7(1)-(5).
• Ensure the format and content of tests comply: Tests relied upon must be “based on the English test components” of listening, reading, speaking and writing (s 4 definition; s 6(c)(i)). Applicants must therefore present tests that assess all four components.

Duties implied for institutions and test providers

• Provide verifiable documentation: educational institutions and test providers will need to issue records that substantiate completion and the language of instruction or test scores in the formats the Department requires. The instrument requires evidence of “having completed” or “having achieved” particular qualifications or scores (s 6(a)-(c)). The instrument does not itself stipulate evidence formats, but it presumes the existence of verifiable documentary proof.
• For Australian study route, demonstrate location and instruction medium: s 6(b) requires successful completion “in Australia” and that “all the instruction was conducted in English”. Institutions must be able to confirm both the geographic location and the medium of instruction.

Rights of applicants and decision-makers

• Right to rely on specified evidence: An applicant who provides evidence that meets the instrument’s requirements has the right (for purposes of the statutory evidentiary regime) to have that evidence treated as “prescribed evidence” of functional English under paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act (s 6 opening).
• Departmental discretion remains intact: The instrument does not remove the decision-maker’s statutory authority under the Act or Regulations to weigh or verify evidence, nor does it create an automatic entitlement to a visa or approval; it supplies an evidentiary bucket for fulfilling a criterion. The instrument’s language is recognitional: it “specifies and recognises” requirements as prescribed evidence (s 6 opening). That means officials still apply the statutory and regulatory decision-making framework to the overall application.

Limits and conditions

• The passport/citizenship route is conditional: s 6(d) requires both citizenship of, and a valid passport issued by, the listed country. An applicant who is a citizen of a listed country but does not hold a valid passport from that country cannot rely on s 6(d) as written.
• Tests have different score types and minima: Schedule 1 distinguishes between “average band score” (column 2), “overall band score” (column 3) and “total band score” (column 4). Applicants must ensure they present the type of score that corresponds to the test (Schedule 1; s 4 definitions of score terms).

Procedural consequence of non-compliance

• If the applicant does not provide any of the prescribed evidence listed in s 6 (and does not meet the s 7 transitional windows where appropriate), they will lack the specified evidentiary proof required under paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act. The instrument does not itself say what the decision-maker must do in that event; however, absence of prescribed evidence will be an evidentiary failing when assessing the relevant criterion under the Act and Regulations.

The instrument does not create offences, fines, or administrative penalties. It is an evidentiary specification rather than a penal instrument. The text confers recognitional status on listed evidence for the statutory functional English requirement; it does not create enforcement mechanisms within the instrument itself.

What enforcement means in practice

• Administrative decision-making governed by the Act and Regulations: Enforcement of the functional English requirement is exercised through application-stage decisions under the Migration Act and Migration Regulations. The instrument supplies the evidentiary standards for paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act (s 6). The consequence of not meeting the prescribed evidence is practical: an applicant may fail to satisfy the functional English criterion that is a condition or requirement of a visa or other approval. The instrument itself does not prescribe the procedural steps the Department will take on discovering that evidence is inadequate; those steps are governed by the Act, Regulations, and administrative practice.
• Verification and assessment by officials: Departmental officers will verify that the evidence tendered matches the instrument’s requirements (e.g. test type, score type, score value, dates, or education delivered “in English”) before accepting it as prescribed evidence. The instrument requires that tests be “based on the English test components” (s 6(c)(i)), and that tests relied upon under s 6(c) meet certain time windows (s 6(c)(ii)). These are assessment benchmarks that officers will use.

Limits on sanctioning power in the instrument

• No standalone penalties or enforcement powers are created: The instrument does not include compliance-enforcement provisions such as pecuniary penalties, criminal offences, or express administrative sanctions. Any adverse consequences for failing to meet the instrument’s standards flow from the substantive law (e.g. refusal of a visa application) and from regulatory practice rather than from the instrument itself.
• Reliance on the Department’s procedural powers: Where the Department suspects fraud, document falsification or similar misconduct in supporting evidence, other statutory or regulatory provisions may apply; those are not recited in this instrument. The instrument does not specify what evidentiary verification mechanisms the Department will use.

Record-keeping, audit and review implications

• The instrument’s reliance on documentary proof and test scores implies a practical enforcement modality: records must be produced and retained and must be verifiable. The instrument itself does not specify retention periods or audit mechanisms, but the Department’s usual verification processes will be invoked in practice.

In sum, the instrument functions as an administrative evidentiary rule; it does not institute new penalties. The practical effect of failing to meet its prescriptions is the administrative outcome that flows from consuming a statutory criterion without meeting the required evidence , typically refusal or non-approval under the Act and Regulations, applied by the decision-maker exercising statutory powers outside the instrument.

This instrument is an administrative specification made under the Migration Regulations 1994 and operates within the existing statutory framework of the Migration Act 1958. The instrument must be read as part of the architecture that determines visa and nomination eligibility where “functional English” is required.

Primary statutory interaction

• Authority and scope: The instrument is made under paragraph 5.17(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (s 3). It specifies evidence for paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (s 6 opening). Therefore the instrument’s legal effect is tied to the statutory provisions for which it provides prescribed evidence. It does not alter the Act’s definition of functional English; the instrument specifies what counts as prescribed evidence for meeting the statutory criterion (s 4 note referencing subsection 5(2) of the Act).
• Application to regulatory provisions invoking functional English: The instrument expressly contemplates application to visa and other regulatory contexts that reference functional English. The definition of “relevant application” in s 4 includes visa applications and applications under s 140GB to approve a nomination. The instrument gives examples pointing to specific provisions in the Regulations: subregulation 2.72A(14) (Minister approving a nomination under s 140GB(2)) and clause 407.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations (Subclass 407 visa requirement) (s 4 examples). Where those or other provisions of the Regulations require functional English, officials will treat evidence satisfying this instrument as prescribed evidence for paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Act.

Temporal and transitional interaction

• Tests taken before instrument commencement: Section 7 operates as a transitional or savings provision for test results obtained before the instrument commenced. It limits acceptance of such pre-commencement tests to those taken before commencement and within the 12 months immediately prior to the relevant application, and sets specific minimum scores for those tests (s 7(1)-(5)). This creates an interaction across time between the prior specification (which is repealed by Schedule 2) and the new specification set out in this instrument.
• Repeal of prior specification: Schedule 2 repeals the earlier instrument “Migration Regulations 1994 - Specification of Evidence of Functional English Language Proficiency 2015 - IMMI 15/004” in whole (Schedule 2 item 1). That prior instrument’s content is thus displaced by this instrument with respect to applications on or after the commencement, subject to s 7 transitional allowances for certain pre-commencement tests.

Interaction with tests and credential frameworks

• Alignment with test formats: The instrument requires test-based evidence to be “based on the English test components” of listening, reading, speaking and writing (s 4; s 6(c)(i)). It therefore interacts functionally with the design and reporting frameworks of the listed tests and with the ways test providers report “average”, “overall” and “total” band scores (Schedule 1). Decision-makers must map test provider reporting metrics to the instrument’s column headings when assessing compliance.
• Interaction with domestic education recognition rules: The instrument permits evidence from Australian study (s 6(b)) and education where instruction was in English (s 6(a)). How a particular institution’s evidence is assessed for “all instruction was conducted in English” will interact with any separate regulatory or departmental policies on proof of medium of instruction. The instrument itself does not set a specific documentary format for that proof.

Limits and scope vis-à-vis other legislative instruments

• No repeal of substantive statutory criteria elsewhere: The instrument does not alter statutory criteria in the Act or the Regulations; it is narrowly directed at evidence recognised under paragraph 5(2)(b). Any substantive changes to visa criteria or to the content of the functional English test would require amendment to the Act or Regulations, not just this instrument.
• Delegated instrument within the regulatory ecosystem: Because the instrument is made under the Regulations, it must be applied alongside other regulatory and administrative instruments that implement visa criteria. Officials will apply the instrument’s evidentiary list within the broader statutory scheme governing eligibility, character, health, and other statutory requirements.

In summary, the instrument functions as an evidentiary specification that interacts directly with Migration Act paragraph 5(2)(b), with various regulatory provisions that require functional English, with test-provider reporting frameworks, with institutional evidence of medium of instruction, and with transitional arrangements tied to the repeal of the 2015 specification instrument.

This instrument contains an explicit, narrow amendment history confined to its own commencement and to the repeal of the previous specification instrument. The text supplied records the following relevant entries:

• Date and maker: The instrument is dated 5 August 2025 and signed by Matt Thistlethwaite, Assistant Minister for Immigration (front matter). The instrument commences on 7 August 2025 (s 2).
• Authority for making: The instrument is made under paragraph 5.17(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (s 3).
• Repeal of prior instrument: Schedule 2 gives effect to a repeal: the whole of the instrument titled “Migration Regulations 1994 - Specification of Evidence of Functional English Language Proficiency 2015 - IMMI 15/004” is repealed (Schedule 2, item 1). There is no partial repeal; the earlier instrument is repealed in full.
• Transitional provision in the new instrument: Section 7 provides a transitional recognition for certain tests undertaken before the commencement of this instrument. It specifies that, for relevant applications made on or after the instrument’s commencement, a person who undertook certain tests before this instrument commenced, and where the test was undertaken within the 12 months immediately before the application and before the day this instrument commences, may rely on the specified minimum scores listed in s 7(2)-(5). The tests included in s 7 are IELTS, TOEFL iBT, PTE Academic and Cambridge English Advanced (CAE) and the minimum scores specified in s 7 differ from those in Schedule 1.
• No further amendments recorded in the instrument: The instrument does not itself amend other Regulations text or insert new regulatory provisions beyond specifying what counts as prescribed evidence and repealing the 2015 instrument (s 5 indicates that instruments specified in a Schedule are amended or repealed as set out in the Schedule; Schedule 2 contains only the repeal).

Absence of prior amendment trail within this instrument

• The instrument does not set out a historical chain of earlier amendments other than the single repeal in Schedule 2. There are no recurring amendment entries within the body of the instrument itself.

Practical consequence of the amendment history

• The 2015 specification instrument is no longer operative once the new instrument commences, except to the limited extent tests taken before commencement are recognised under s 7. Applicants and advisers must therefore follow the new instrument’s requirements for applications made on or after 7 August 2025 (s 8(a)).

If further government or departmental amendment occurs after commencement, such changes would appear in subsequent instruments or amendments to the Regulations; this instrument as supplied contains no such later amendments.

The text of the instrument contains no litigation history, judicial references, or cited cases. It does reference the statutory provisions it interacts with (for example, paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 and paragraph 5.17(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994) and includes illustrative references to specific regulatory provisions (subregulation 2.72A(14) and clause 407.212) in its definition of “relevant application” (s 4). However, the instrument itself contains no record of judicial interpretation or litigation concerning its content, and it names no cases.

Consequences of absence of litigation history in text

• No authoritative judicial construction recorded: Because the instrument does not cite any cases or contain a litigation history, there is no statement within the instrument about how courts have interpreted its provisions. Decision-makers applying the instrument will therefore rely on statutory interpretation principles, departmental policy and practice, and any external administrative law or migration case law that separately addresses functional English or the broader statutory provisions; such cases are not cited in this instrument.
• Potential for future litigation: The instrument’s content , specifying tests, scores, timing rules and definitions such as “all instruction was conducted in English” , contains fact-sensitive elements that could generate disputes about evidentiary sufficiency or the appropriate mapping of test scores to the instrument’s “average/overall/total” score categories. The instrument itself does not address dispute resolution or appeals; those mechanisms are found in the Act and Regulations and in the administrative review system. Any future litigation would therefore arise in those fora rather than from this instrument’s text.

If a reader requires judicial or tribunal decisions interpreting similar evidentiary specifications or the statutory concept of functional English, they will need to consult case law sources and tribunal records outside this instrument, since the instrument does not include them.

This instrument contains several features and textual distinctions that are readily overlooked and that materially affect practical compliance. The following are concrete items to note, each rooted in the instrument’s text.

1. Two different test-score tables and potentially different minima apply depending on the timing of the test (ss 6(c); 7).

   • Tests taken on or after the day of application, or in the 12 months immediately before the application, are accepted against the minima in Schedule 1 (s 6(c)(ii) read with Schedule 1).
   • Tests taken before the instrument commenced (i.e. before 7 August 2025) may be accepted only if they were both (a) taken in the 12 months immediately before the application and (b) taken before the instrument commenced; such pre-commencement tests are subject to distinct minimum scores set out in s 7(2)-(5). Practically, applicants whose tests were taken in the months immediately before commencement must check whether the different thresholds in s 7 apply and whether their scores meet the alternative minima.

2. The instrument uses different score-type labels and those labels map to different tests (s 4 definitions; Schedule 1).

   • Schedule 1 is structured with three score-type columns: “Average band score” (column 2), “Overall band score” (column 3) and “Total band score” (column 4). Each listed test is assigned to one of those columns in the table.
   • Applicants must ensure the score they present is the particular metric the instrument invokes for that test. For example, the CELPIP General is listed under “Average band score” (Schedule 1, Item 1), while PTE Academic and TOEFL iBT are in the “Total band score” column (Schedule 1, Items 7-8). The instrument’s text also defines “average band score”, “overall band score” and “total band score” as types of test scores (s 4). Misreading the column mapping risks presenting the wrong score type and failing to meet the prescribed evidence.

3. Some tests appear only in the transitional s 7 list and not in Schedule 1, and vice versa.

   • Cambridge English Advanced (CAE) appears only in s 7(5) with a minimum overall score of 147 for pre-commencement tests; CAE does not appear in Schedule 1. Conversely, LANGUAGECERT Academic, MET and OET appear in Schedule 1 but not in s 7. This means applicants who have a CAE result taken before commencement must refer to s 7, whereas applicants taking CAE on or after the application date (or within 12 months prior to application but after commencement) cannot rely on CAE unless it is listed in Schedule 1 (it is not). The split may produce unexpected gaps depending on timing and the test a person used.

4. Timing window is asymmetric and includes taking the test on or after the day of application (s 6(c)(ii)(B)).

   • The instrument allows tests to be taken on or after the day the application is made (s 6(c)(ii)(B)). That is operationally significant: applicants can lodge an application and then undertake the test. However, that raises practical questions about processing sequencing, evidence-supply windows and whether the Department will place holds or requests for further information pending a later test result. The instrument does not prescribe departmental processing practices; it only allows the test-timing approach.

5. “All instruction was conducted in English” is a strict textual requirement for the education routes (s 6(a)-(b)).

   • The education-based alternatives require proof that “all instruction was conducted in English” (s 6(a), s 6(b)). This is stricter than “substantial instruction” or “majority instruction”; the instrument uses “all”, which implies institutions must verify medium of instruction for every relevant course element. Applicants relying on schooling or Australian study should ensure documentation explicitly confirms the medium of instruction, not merely the language of the curriculum or the country of study.

6. Passport/citizenship route requires both citizenship and a valid passport of a listed country (s 6(d)).

   • The applicant must be a citizen of, and hold a valid passport issued by, one of the five listed countries (Canada; New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; United Kingdom; United States) (s 6(d)). Absence of a valid passport, or possession of a travel document in lieu of a national passport, appears not to qualify under this paragraph as written.

7. The instrument repeals the prior 2015 instrument but does not automatically grandfather older tests beyond the s 7 window (Schedule 2; s 7).

   • Many applicants may hold older test results that fall outside the 12-month windows or were taken after commencement but not among tests listed in Schedule 1. Such results will not be treated as prescribed evidence for the functional English criterion under this instrument.

8. Differences in numerical minima between Schedule 1 and s 7 can catch applicants by surprise.

   • For example, PTE Academic is listed in Schedule 1 at “at least 24” (Schedule 1, Item 7) but s 7(4) sets the minimum for PTE Academic undertaken before commencement at at least 30. Similarly, TOEFL iBT is at least 26 in Schedule 1 (Schedule 1, Item 8) but s 7(3) sets 32 for pre-commencement tests. Applicants with test scores in the 24-30 or 26-32 ranges who took those tests before commencement may fail to meet the transitional minima even though the Schedule 1 minima are lower; the timing of when tests were taken determines which minima apply.

9. The instrument’s definitions of score-terms are functional but do not provide conversion tables or mapping guidance.

   • The instrument uses “average band score”, “overall band score” and “total band score” but does not explain how to compute these or how to handle provider-specific scoring conventions. Decision-makers will need to map provider score reports to the instrument’s labels, which may require technical familiarity with each test’s scoring methodology.

10. No procedural form or evidence format is prescribed.

• The instrument does not specify document formats, verification procedures, or how attestations of “all instruction in English” must be evidenced. Applicants and institutions must therefore follow departmental guidance or standard practice for documentary proof; absence of a standard in the instrument increases the importance of checking departmental document-checking protocols.

Each of these points follows from the instrument’s explicit text (see ss 4, 6, 7, Schedule 1, Schedule 2). Practitioners should read the timing and score provisions closely, map score types to test reports, verify medium-of-instruction attestations, and anticipate that departmental processing may require subsequent evidence where tests are scheduled on or after application.

This section sets out practical, source-grounded steps for an applicant or adviser to ensure the evidence they present meets the instrument’s prescriptions. All references below cite the relevant clauses from the instrument.

1. Identify whether a “relevant application” is being made

   • Confirm the application is a “relevant application” as defined (s 4). This includes visa applications and applications under s 140GB to approve a nomination; the instrument gives examples referencing subregulation 2.72A(14) and clause 407.212 (s 4 examples). The instrument applies to relevant applications made on or after 7 August 2025 (s 8(a)).

2. Choose the evidentiary route that best fits the applicant’s records

   • Education route (s 6(a)): If the applicant completed all years of primary and at least three years of secondary education, or at least five years of secondary education, in an institution where all instruction was conducted in English, prepare certified school records and an institutional statement that explicitly confirms “all instruction was conducted in English” (s 6(a)(i)-(ii)).
   • Australian study route (s 6(b)): If the applicant completed at least one year of full-time (or equivalent part-time) study in Australia toward an eligible award where all instruction was in English, obtain transcripts, enrolment and completion letters, and an institutional certification that all instruction for the relevant course(s) was in English (s 6(b)(i)-(iv)). Ensure the study was physically in Australia as required by the clause.
   • Test route (s 6(c) and Schedule 1): If relying on a language test, confirm the test is listed in Schedule 1 and that the minimum specified for that test is met in the appropriate score type (average/overall/total) as per Schedule 1. The tests listed in Schedule 1 are CELPIP General, IELTS Academic, IELTS General Training, LANGUAGECERT Academic, MET, OET, PTE Academic and TOEFL iBT (Schedule 1).
   • Passport/citizenship route (s 6(d)): If the applicant is a citizen of one of the five listed countries and holds a valid passport from that country, provide the passport to satisfy s 6(d).

3. Confirm test timing and, if necessary, whether transitional s 7 applies

   • For tests taken on or after the application date, or within the 12 months before application, rely on the minima in Schedule 1 (s 6(c)(ii)(A)-(B); Schedule 1).
   • If the test was taken before the instrument commenced (i.e. before 7 August 2025), check whether the test was both (a) taken before commencement and (b) taken in the 12 months immediately before the application. If so, s 7 applies and the minimum scores in s 7(2)-(5) govern for the tests listed there (s 7(1)-(5)). Note the potentially different minima (for example, PTE and TOEFL minima are higher in s 7).
   • If the test was taken earlier than 12 months before application, it will not meet the temporal requirement in s 6(c)(ii)(A) nor the s 7 transitional window, and therefore will not be prescribed evidence under the test pathway.

4. Ensure the test used assesses all four “English test components”

   • The instrument requires the test to be based on listening, reading, speaking and writing (s 4; s 6(c)(i)). Confirm the test report includes scores for each of these components and that the score presented corresponds to the column type that Schedule 1 associates with that test (average/overall/total).

5. Gather documentary proof in appropriate form

   • For educational routes, obtain official transcripts, completion certificates, and a signed attestation from the institution that all instruction was conducted in English. Where possible, obtain the institution’s standard letterhead, contact details, and an official signature for verification.
   • For the test route, obtain official test score reports directly from the test provider in their standard certified format. Ensure the score report clearly shows the test date and the component scores if relevant; include any candidate identification that ties the report to the applicant.
   • For the passport/citizenship route, provide a current, valid passport from one of the five listed countries (s 6(d)).

6. Anticipate verification and be prepared for departmental queries

   • The instrument does not prescribe documentary formats, so applicants should be prepared to provide supplementary evidence if the Department requests verification (for example, a letter clarifying medium of instruction, certified translations where documents are not in English, or direct verification of test scores with test providers).
   • If the applicant plans to take the test on or after lodgement of the application (per s 6(c)(ii)(B)), plan test scheduling so results will arrive within any processing timetables set by the Department.

7. Check the correct score metric for each test

   • Map the test score type used by the provider to the instrument’s required label in Schedule 1. For instance, the instrument lists IELTS under “Average band score” (Schedule 1, Items 2-3), PTE Academic under “Total band score” (Schedule 1, Item 7), and OET under a numeric threshold (Schedule 1, Item 6). Present the score in the form the test provider issues and confirm it corresponds to the instrument’s expectation.

8. Address borderline scores and pre-commencement tests carefully

   • If an applicant has a test result that meets the Schedule 1 minimum but the test was taken before commencement and within the 12-month window, check whether s 7’s higher minimum applies. For example, a PTE result of 26 meets the Schedule 1 minimum of 24 but is below the s 7(4) pre-commencement minimum of 30, so the test timing determines which standard governs.

9. Maintain originals and certified copies, and keep proof of application dates

   • Because the instrument’s temporal rules hinge on the date of the application and the test date (s 6(c)(ii)), retain evidence of lodgement dates, test booking confirmations and official test dates. Ensure certified copies of documents are available for filing and verification.

10. Seek departmental guidance where ambiguous

• The instrument leaves some procedural matters to departmental practice (for example, how the Department handles test results received after lodgement, or what evidence is sufficient to prove “all instruction was conducted in English”). Applicants should consult departmental published guidance or requests-for-evidence procedures where available, and consider lodging clarifying documentation at the time of application to avoid delays.

Following these steps will position an applicant to present evidence that aligns with the instrument’s precise textual requirements (ss 4, 6, 7; Schedule 1). Practitioners should pay particular attention to the timing rules, the mapping between test-provider scoring conventions and the instrument’s score-type columns, and the strict wording “all instruction was conducted in English” for education-based routes.