Migration (IMMI 18/015: English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visa) Instrument 2018

The instrument frames its rules around three core concepts: prescribed tests and scores, temporal validity of test results, and defined classes of exemption. These are implemented as specifications to be read against the Migration Regulations 1994.

Prescribed tests and scores. Schedule 1 lists the only tests that satisfy the specified requirement for non‑exempt applicants. For each test a baseline numeric threshold is set. For IELTS the baseline is overall band 5.5, with lower permitted overall bands of 5 or 4.5 if the test result is packaged with at least 10 or 20 weeks of ELICOS respectively. For TOEFL iBT the baseline is 46, with lower thresholds of 35 (10 weeks ELICOS) and 32 (20 weeks ELICOS). For CAE the baseline is 162, with concessions to 154 and 147 when packaged with 10 and 20 weeks ELICOS. For PTE the baseline is 42, with concessions to 36 and 30 for 10 and 20 weeks ELICOS. For OET the requirement is a score of at least B in each test component (Schedule 1). The instrument places packaging concessions explicitly in Schedule 1; it does not otherwise define the mechanics of packaging within the instrument text (see s 4 note that ELICOS is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations).

Temporal validity. The instrument sets a two year currency window for test results tied to whether evidence is provided at lodgement or later. If evidence is provided at the time the applicant makes the visa application, the test must have been completed within the two years immediately before the application date. If evidence is not provided at lodgement and is instead provided later, the test must have been completed within the two years immediately before the decision to grant or refuse the visa is made (s 6(1)(c)). This creates two distinct anchor points for currency, depending on an applicant’s procedural choice to submit test evidence with the application or later.

Classes of exemption. The instrument removes the application of subclause 500.213(1) to specified groups (s 6(2)). Exemptions are based on citizenship/passport, course type or modality, special student categories, recent successful completion of specified English‑conducted study in Australia, and a five‑year English‑language study history in certain countries. The instrument cross‑references definitions in the Regulations for certain terms such as ELICOS, Defence student, Foreign Affairs student and Secondary exchange student (s 4).

Interaction with existing instruments and definitions. The instrument is a delegated instrument made under the Migration Regulations (s 3) and therefore functions by specifying requirements for particular subclauses of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The instrument retains, by note and cross‑reference, several definitions that are located in the principal Regulations and in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). It also repeals the earlier instrument IMMI 16/019 and establishes transitional application rules for pre‑6 June 2018 applications (Schedule 2).

Operational terms that are either not defined in the instrument or are defined elsewhere require reference to the principal Regulations. Examples in the instrument include ELICOS and principal course (s 4). The instrument thereby relies on the Regulations and other statutes for definitional content while confining itself to the specification of tests, scores, time limits and exempt classes.

Primary affected persons. The instrument directly affects applicants for the Subclass 500 (Student) visa whose applications are made on or after the instrument’s commencement (s 7). For those applicants, the instrument prescribes the tests they must take and the scores they must achieve unless they fall into one of the enumerated exemptions (s 6). It therefore changes (or confirms) the evidentiary requirement that must be satisfied for the English‑language element of that visa subclass.

Exempt applicants. The instrument specifically lists categories of applicants who are not required to satisfy the specified testing requirement for the purpose of subclause 500.213(2). These include citizens holding passports from the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland; applicants enrolled in courses registered to be delivered in a language other than English, registered ELICOS courses, registered school courses, or registered post‑graduate research courses; and applicants who are Foreign Affairs students, Defence students, or Secondary exchange students. It also includes applicants who, within the two years before applying, have completed either the Senior Secondary Certificate of Education conducted in Australia in English, or a substantial component of a course leading to an AQF qualification at Certificate IV level or higher conducted in Australia in English while holding a student visa; and applicants with at least five years of English‑medium study in a specified list of countries (s 6(2)). These exemptions will directly affect applicants who can produce documentary evidence of the relevant passport, enrolment, or prior study.

Administrative bodies and decision‑makers. The Department responsible for migration decision‑making (the instrument assumes decision functions under the Regulations) must apply these specifications when assessing whether an applicant has met the English requirement in subclause 500.213(1) or an applicable exemption under subclause 500.213(2). The instrument modifies the criteria that decision‑makers must measure an applicant against, thereby affecting administrative practice in visa assessments. The instrument does not itself allocate new decision‑making powers or remedies; it operates by specifying criteria under the existing regulatory decision framework (s 3).

Test providers and education providers. The instrument names a discrete set of test products (IELTS, TOEFL iBT, Cambridge CAE, PTE Academic, OET) in Schedule 1. While the instrument does not regulate the test providers, it creates a demand vector for those specific tests because only listed tests satisfy the specified requirement for non‑exempt applicants. Similarly, ELICOS providers may be affected indirectly because the Schedule permits lower test thresholds where the test is packaged with 10 or 20 weeks’ ELICOS. The instrument does not elaborate packaging mechanics, but it does make the existence of packaged ELICOS an operational factor.

Visa applicants with pending pre‑commencement applications. The instrument repeals the prior 2016 instrument (IMMI 16/019) but provides a transitional rule preserving the application of the old instrument to visa applications made before 6 June 2018 that were not finally determined by that date (Schedule 2 Part 2). Thus two cohorts of applicants are affected differently depending on application date and decision timing.

Other parties. Agents, education agents and legal advisers who prepare Subclass 500 applications will need to align advice and documentation practices with the instrument’s specified tests, score thresholds and admissible exemptions. The instrument does not itself set procedural documentary forms, but its content determines the type of evidence decision‑makers will be looking for.

In sum, the immediate legal effect lands on visa applicants and decision‑makers, with downstream practical effects for test providers, ELICOS and education providers and intermediaries who assist applicants.

Duties placed on applicants. For applicants to whom subclause 500.213(1) applies (that is, not within any of the enumerated exemption classes), the instrument imposes three express duties. The applicant must undertake one of the English language tests specified in Column 1 of Schedule 1, achieve the minimum test score specified for that test in Column 3, and ensure the test was completed within the two year period specified relative to lodgement or decision as set out in s 6(1)(a)-(c). These are mandatory requirements specified “for the purpose of” the statutory subclause; failing to meet them means the applicant does not satisfy the requirement as specified.

Duty to time test evidence. The instrument creates a practical duty to consider timing of test evidence. If an applicant submits test evidence with the application, the currency window is measured against the application lodgement date. If the evidence is supplied later, the window is measured against the decision date (s 6(1)(c)). That creates a procedural choice with legal consequence; applicants who need the two year window intact may prefer to lodge test evidence with their application to anchor the two year period to lodgement rather than to an uncertain decision date.

Duty to rely on specified tests. The instrument confines acceptable test evidence to the list in Schedule 1. Applicants cannot, under this instrument, rely on other unlisted tests to meet the specified requirement; the instrument imposes the duty to choose an accepted test (s 6(1)(a) and Schedule 1).

Duty to document exemptions. For applicants claiming an exemption under s 6(2), the instrument’s operation requires that the applicant be able to demonstrate their entitlement to that exemption in concrete terms (valid passport for specified countries, enrolment status in a registered course type, prior completion of specified Australian study, or five years of study in listed countries). The instrument, however, does not specify documentary forms or evidentiary standards; evidence practices are governed by the broader visa application process.

Rights of applicants. The instrument does not create affirmative rights such as entitlements to administrative review or merits review; those rights and remedies are governed by the Migration Regulations and other applicable statutes. What the instrument does do is specify objective criteria that an applicant can meet to establish compliance. An applicant who obtains a listed test and achieves the listed score within the required period has a clear, verifiable basis to assert that they meet the English-language specification set for subclause 500.213(1) (s 6(1), Schedule 1).

Decision‑maker obligations implied by the instrument. The instrument requires decision‑makers to apply the prescribed tests, scores and exemptions when determining whether an applicant meets the English requirement for the Subclass 500 visa. That obligation is not expressed as a separate duty in the instrument, but the instrument’s function is to set the standards that decision‑makers must apply under subclause 500.213(3) authority (s 3).

Limits and delegation. The instrument relies on definitions that are located in the Migration Regulations and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). This means that precise interpretation of some terms and eligibility for some exemptions will require reference to those instruments. For example, ELICOS is defined in regulation 1.03 of the Regulations. Decision‑makers must therefore apply those cross‑referenced statutory definitions when implementing the duties and rights that the instrument establishes.

In summary, the instrument places straightforward evidentiary duties on non‑exempt applicants to take specified tests, achieve specified scores and meet specified timing rules, while providing enumerated exemption classes whose operation depends on documentary proof and cross‑referenced statutory definitions.

The instrument itself does not create criminal offences, civil fines, or procedural sanctions. It functions as a specification of requirements under subclause 500.213(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, made under the authority of subclause 500.213(3) (s 3). Therefore any consequences for failing to meet the instrument’s requirements flow from the regulatory decision framework in the Migration Regulations and from administrative application processes, rather than from the instrument imposing independent penalties.

Consequence by operation of the Regulations. Because the instrument specifies the requisites for the purpose of subclause 500.213(1), an applicant who does not meet the specified test, score or timing requirement, and who does not fall within any exemption listed in s 6(2), will not satisfy that regulatory requirement. The consequence in visa processing practice is that an applicant who fails to meet the specified standard will lack the required English evidence and may have their visa application refused under the applicable provisions of the Migration Regulations. The instrument does not itself state that a visa will be refused; it prescribes the criteria that feed into statutory decision‑making. The mechanics of refusal, reconsideration, merits review and judicial review are governed by the Migration Regulations and the Migration Act and are not set out in this instrument.

Administrative enforcement. Enforcement of the instrument’s standards will be carried out by migration decision‑makers handling Subclass 500 applications. Those officials must check whether submitted test results satisfy Schedule 1 thresholds and whether any claimed exemption in s 6(2) applies. The instrument sets the questions that officials must ask; the forms of administrative follow up, requests for further information, or invitation to provide evidence are procedures within the broader administrative framework and not specified here.

No monetary penalties or civil sanctions in this instrument. The instrument contains no express monetary penalty, civil liability provision, or criminal sanction. It is a standards instrument operating within the broader visa decision rules. Consequently, enforcement consists of acceptance or non‑acceptance of an applicant’s evidence in visa processing, with any adverse practical effect being denial of a favourable visa outcome rather than the imposition of a separate statutory fine.

Transitional enforcement effect. The instrument repeals the earlier 2016 instrument and provides a transitional savings provision for applications made before 6 June 2018 that had not been finally determined by that date (Schedule 2 Part 2). That means enforcement of the English‑language requirement for such pre‑6 June 2018 applications remains subject to the previous instrument’s terms rather than to IMMI 18/015. Administrative practice must therefore track which instrument governs each pending application depending on application date and determination date.

In short, enforcement is operational, through visa decision‑making under the Migration Regulations, rather than punitive via new offences in this instrument. The instrument creates objective metrics that officials will apply when assessing compliance, and failure to meet those metrics affects the visa decision under the existing legal framework.

Primary interaction with the Migration Regulations 1994. The instrument is a delegated instrument made under subclause 500.213(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (s 3). Its function is to specify requirements for subclause 500.213(1) and exemptions for the purpose of subclause 500.213(2). Consequently, the instrument does not operate in isolation. Its content must be read together with the Migration Regulations, which contain the operative visa decision provisions, definitions, procedural rules for applications, and the legal consequences of failing to meet regulatory requisites. The instrument explicitly cross‑references definitions that are located in the Regulations (s 4).

Cross‑references to definitions and other statutes. Section 4 states that a number of expressions used in the instrument are defined in the definitions section of the Regulations, naming Defence student, ELICOS, Foreign Affairs student and Secondary exchange student as examples. It also states that the Australian Qualifications Framework has the same meaning given by the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and that principal course means the main course of study to be undertaken by an overseas student (s 4). The instrument therefore relies on the broader statutory architecture for key definitional content. Decision‑makers and applicants must consult the Regulations and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to resolve interpretive questions about those terms.

Interaction with prior instruments. The instrument expressly repeals the earlier delegated instrument English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visas 2016/019 (IMMI 16/019) (Schedule 2 Part 1). Schedule 2 Part 2 preserves the operation of the repealed instrument for applications made before 6 June 2018 that were not finally determined by that date. This repeal and saving rule creates a temporal interaction between instruments: application date and final determination date will determine whether IMMI 16/019 or IMMI 18/015 governs a particular application.

Relation to immigration evidence and procedural law. The instrument sets the evidentiary categories (tests and exemptions) relevant to the English requirement. However, evidentiary standards, admissibility of documents, credibility assessments, and the procedural steps for requesting further information, inviting the applicant to respond, or refusing an application are governed by the Migration Regulations, the Migration Act 1958 and related administrative law principles. This instrument therefore modifies the substantive criteria without changing the underlying administrative law framework for processing and review.

Dependence on definitional provisions outside the instrument. Several operational terms used in the instrument are defined in the Regulations or in other legislation. For example, ELICOS is defined in regulation 1.03 of the Regulations (s 4). Where the instrument uses the phrase “packaged with at least X weeks’ ELICOS” in Schedule 1, the practical meaning is dependent on the definition and regulatory treatment of ELICOS in the principal Regulations. Similarly, the concept of “Senior Secondary Certificate of Education” and what constitutes a “substantial component” of an AQF qualification are not defined in this instrument; resolution of those concepts requires reference to the Regulations and potentially to other administrative guidance.

No conflict with other statutes in the instrument text. The instrument does not purport to override or conflict with other statutes. It operates within the delegated powers conferred by the Migration Regulations and explicitly ties definitional elements to other statutes where relevant (s 4). Any tension between the instrument and the Regulations would be resolved by treating the instrument as a specification authorised under the Regulations; the Regulations and the Migration Act occupy the higher place in the hierarchy.

In short, IMMI 18/015 operates as a delegated specification that must be applied in conjunction with the Migration Regulations and with definitional provisions in the Regulations and other statutes. It modifies the substantive English‑language standards but leaves procedural and remedial rules to the parent legislation.

Identity and citation. The instrument is titled Migration (IMMI 18/015: English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visa) Instrument 2018 and may be cited as IMMI 18/015 (s 1). It is made under the authority specified in s 3.

Repeal of predecessor. Schedule 2 Part 1 effectually repeals the whole of the earlier instrument English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visas 2016/019 (F2016L00629). The text in Part 1 states: “Repeal the instrument. 1 The whole of the instrument” (Schedule 2 Part 1). That is a full repeal of IMMI 16/019.

Transitional savings provision. Schedule 2 Part 2 contains an application clause for the repeal. It provides that notwithstanding the repeal, the repealed instrument, as in force immediately before the commencement of that Part, continues to apply in relation to a Subclass 500 visa application if that application is made before 6 June 2018 and is not finally determined on or before 6 June 2018. This is a classical savings clause which preserves the legal expectations of applicants who lodged before the operative cutoff date and who had not yet received a final decision by that date.

Effective application scope. Section 7 states that the instrument applies to an application for a Subclass 500 visa made on or after the commencement of this instrument. The instrument does not itself contain an express commencement date in the body text provided; however, Schedule 2 Part 2 references 6 June 2018 as the cutoff date for the savings provision. The presence of that date in the transitional clause indicates that the repeal and the new instrument’s operation were intended to take effect in relation to new applications lodged on or after the new instrument’s commencement, with pre‑6 June 2018 applications being governed by the previous instrument where not yet finally determined.

No further amendments recorded in the instrument. The instrument text supplied contains only the initial provisions, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 repeal and application provisions. There are no subsequent amendment schedules, no sunset clauses, and no staged amendments included. Any future amendments to these specifications would require the making of a further instrument under the enabling provision in subclause 500.213(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Interaction with external amendment sources. The instrument cross‑references definitions located in the principal Regulations and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). Consequently, amendments to those primary statutes or to definitions within the Regulations may indirectly alter the operation of this instrument by changing definitional content. For example, if the definition of ELICOS in regulation 1.03 were amended, the meaning of the Schedule 1 packaging concessions could change accordingly. The instrument itself contains no mechanism to automatically adjust thresholds or tests in response to external changes; changes would be effected by amendment to the instrument or to the Regulations as applicable.

Practical implication of the repeal and saving. The repeal of IMMI 16/019 and its replacement by IMMI 18/015 constitutes a discrete policy or administrative change in the list of acceptable tests, thresholds or exemptions, even if the substantive content is similar. The instrument’s transitional saving ensures that applicants who relied on the prior instrument when lodging before 6 June 2018 are not subject to the new specifications retroactively.

In summary, IMMI 18/015 superseded IMMI 16/019 in full, provided a saving for pre‑6 June 2018 applications not finally determined, and otherwise stands as the operative specification for Subclass 500 English requirements from its commencement.

The instrument itself does not record any judicial or tribunal decisions that interpret or challenge its provisions. There are no cases, appeals, or references to litigation within the text supplied. Consequently, there is no litigation history contained in this instrument to cite or analyse.

Practical implications of the absence of litigation history. The lack of litigation referenced in the instrument text means that interpreting issues arising from IMMI 18/015 will be decided in the first instance by administrative decision‑makers applying the Migration Regulations and by any merits or judicial review processes that follow from individual visa‑decision disputes. The instrument’s silence on past litigation therefore leaves potential interpretive questions to be resolved through ordinary administrative practice and, if contested, through tribunal or court processes governed by the Migration Act and relevant procedural rules.

Areas likely to generate interpretive disputes. Although the instrument contains clear numerical thresholds and defined classes of exemption, several textual points could prompt legal challenge or requests for review where applicants or decision‑makers disagree about application:

• what constitutes “packaged” ELICOS and how packaging is evidenced, given that the instrument specifies concessions for tests packaged with at least 10 or 20 weeks’ ELICOS but does not define packaging within the instrument itself (Schedule 1; s 4 notes ELICOS is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations);

• what amount of study qualifies as a “substantial component” of a course leading to an AQF Certificate IV or higher conducted in Australia in English (s 6(2)(e)(ii));

• the evidentiary threshold for proving five years of English study in the listed countries, including what documentation is sufficient and whether study must be continuous or may be accumulated across institutions (s 6(2)(f));

• the point at which a test result is to be measured if evidence is provided after lodgement, bearing in mind the two year window is measured against the decision date rather than the application date (s 6(1)(c)).

Potential avenues for review. If an applicant wishes to challenge a decision that relied on the instrument’s specifications, the usual avenues of administrative review and judicial review under the Migration Act and related rules would apply. The instrument itself does not alter those review pathways. Litigation or tribunal review would therefore arise from application of the instrument in a particular case, rather than from the instrument text per se.

In absence of binding precedents in the instrument text, practitioners will need to rely on administrative guidance, the parent Regulations, and potentially on future tribunal and court decisions that interpret these provisions in contested cases.

1. Two distinct two‑year windows. The instrument establishes two different anchoring dates for the two year currency period for test results. If an applicant provides test evidence with their visa application, the two years are counted back from the application date. If an applicant supplies test evidence later, the two years are counted back from the decision date (s 6(1)(c)). That means delaying submission of test evidence can expand or contract the effective currency window depending on the time taken for decision‑making. Practical consequence: applicants who want the certainty of a fixed two year window may prefer to lodge test evidence with the application.

2. Packaging concessions require ELICOS weeks but “packaged” is not defined here. Schedule 1 gives lower thresholds for a number of tests if the test is “packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS” or “20 weeks’ ELICOS.” The instrument does not define the term “packaged” or specify evidentiary form. The instrument does note that ELICOS is defined in regulation 1.03 of the Regulations (s 4). Practical consequence: determining whether a test is properly “packaged” will require reference to the Regulations and possibly to administrative guidance, and applicants should ensure course documentation explicitly shows the ELICOS component packaged with the principal course.

3. OET is component‑based. The Occupational English Test requirement is not an overall numeric score but a grade of at least B in each test component (Schedule 1). Applicants and decision‑makers must therefore check that each component meets the B standard; an aggregate or overall OET grade will not suffice in place of component results.

4. TOEFL‑PBT defined but not used. Section 4 defines TOEFL‑PBT as Test of English as a Foreign Language Paper‑Based test, yet Schedule 1 specifies only TOEFL iBT thresholds. The presence of a TOEFL‑PBT definition without a corresponding Schedule entry is an anomaly in the instrument text. Practitioners should not assume TOEFL‑PBT is acceptable unless it appears in Schedule 1; the Schedule is the operative list of accepted tests for purposes of s 6(1)(a).

5. Narrow passport exemptions. The instrument exempts holders of valid passports from only a specific set of countries (United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland) (s 6(2)(a)). Applicants who are citizens of other majority‑English countries not listed (for example, not listed in the instrument) cannot rely on this passport exemption. Proof of exemption requires possession of a valid passport from one of those listed countries.

6. Australian study exemptions require timing and visa status. The instrument exempts applicants who, in the two years before applying, have completed either the Senior Secondary Certificate of Education in Australia in English, or a substantial component of an AQF Certificate IV or higher that was conducted in Australia in English while the applicant was holding a student visa (s 6(2)(e)). The exemption therefore depends on both timing (within two years) and the applicant having held a student visa during the AQF study. “Substantial component” is not defined here and will require interpretation.

7. Five‑year study exemption is country‑specific. The five years of study in English must have been undertaken in one or more of the listed countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, United States of America) (s 6(2)(f)). Study in other English‑language jurisdictions is not covered by this exemption under this instrument.

8. Course‑type exemptions require registered course status. Applicants enrolled in “a principal course of study that is registered to be delivered in a language other than English,” or a registered ELICOS course, or a registered school course, or a registered post‑graduate research course are exempt (s 6(2)(b)). The exemption turns on the registered status of the course, which means accurate course registration details and up‑to‑date provider registration records may be determinative.

9. Transitional timing snag. The instrument repeals IMMI 16/019 but saves its application for visa applications made before 6 June 2018 that were not finally determined by that date (Schedule 2 Part 2). Practitioners must check the application date and whether a decision was finally made by 6 June 2018 to know which instrument governs any particular application.

10. Principal course concept and multiple courses. The instrument defines principal course in s 4 as the main course of study to be undertaken by an overseas student; the note explains principal course would normally be the final course of study where the overseas student arrives with a student visa that covers multiple courses. This matters where ELICOS is packaged or where a student visa covers multiple courses, because the exemption for course type refers to enrolment in a principal course of study that is registered to be delivered in a language other than English or falls into other registered course categories (s 6(2)(b)).

11. Documentary evidence not specified. The instrument does not set out the form of documentary evidence required to prove exemptions or test results beyond the general requirement that applicants provide evidence. The absence of express evidentiary rules in the instrument means that applicants must follow the usual documentary standards required in visa applications, and decision‑makers retain discretion to accept or seek further evidence under the parent Regulations.

12. Limits on acceptable tests. Only tests identified in Schedule 1 are acceptable for the specified purpose. If a test provider changes test formats or introduces new products, those products will not be acceptable unless the instrument is amended to include them.

These “gotchas” are mechanical features and gaps in the instrument text that affect practical compliance, evidentiary preparation and administrative interpretation.

1. Determine whether you are exempt. Step one is to check whether you fall within any of the exemption categories in s 6(2). These include holding a valid passport issued by the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland (s 6(2)(a)); being enrolled in a principal course registered to be delivered in a language other than English, a registered ELICOS course, a registered school course, or a registered post‑graduate research course (s 6(2)(b)); being a Foreign Affairs student, Defence student, or Secondary exchange student (s 6(2)(c)); having completed certain Australian study in English within the two years prior to applying (s 6(2)(e)); or having completed five years of study in English in one or more of the listed countries (s 6(2)(f)). Collect documentary proof for the exemption you claim: valid passport, course registration/enrolment letters, academic transcripts, certificates, and visa history.

2. If not exempt, select an acceptable test from Schedule 1. The instrument lists only five tests as acceptable for the specified requirement (Schedule 1). Choose one of: International English Language Testing System (IELTS), Test of English as a Foreign Language internet‑based test (TOEFL iBT), Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE), Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE), or Occupational English Test (OET) (Schedule 1).

3. Achieve the specific score required. For the test you select, confirm the minimum score in Column 3 of Schedule 1 and aim to meet or exceed it. Note the lower thresholds available where the test is “packaged” with at least 10 or 20 weeks’ ELICOS for certain tests. For OET ensure you have at least grade B in each test component. Do not rely on unlisted tests or formats; the Schedule is the operative list (Schedule 1).

4. Time the test correctly and assemble evidence at the preferred procedural moment. Tests must have been completed within two years prior to either the application lodgement date (if you attach test evidence when you apply) or within two years prior to the decision date (if you do not supply test evidence at lodgement) (s 6(1)(c)). To reduce uncertainty about the measurement date, consider submitting test evidence with the visa application so the two year window is measured from the application date rather than the decision date.

5. If using ELICOS packaging to qualify for a lower test score, document the packaging. Schedule 1 allows lower thresholds for some tests if they are “packaged with at least 10 weeks’ ELICOS” or “packaged with at least 20 weeks’ ELICOS.” The instrument does not define “packaged,” so practical compliance requires clear documentary evidence that the ELICOS component is formally linked to the principal course. Obtain a letter of offer or enrolment from the education provider that shows the ELICOS component and the principal course as a packaged arrangement, with the number of weeks clearly stated.

6. For Australian study exemptions, produce transcripts and visa evidence. If you rely on having completed the Senior Secondary Certificate of Education in Australia in English, or a substantial component of an AQF Certificate IV or higher in English while holding a student visa, collect official academic transcripts and a record showing you held a student visa during the relevant period. The instrument requires these studies to have been completed within two years before applying (s 6(2)(e)).

7. For the five‑year study exemption, collate institution records from the specified countries. If you claim the five‑year exemption, assemble transcripts, enrolment records and, if necessary, letters from institutions demonstrating that at least five years of study in English were undertaken in one or more of the countries listed in s 6(2)(f). Ensure that dates and course delivery language are clear.

8. Verify course registration status where course‑type exemptions are invoked. If claiming exemption because the principal course is registered to be delivered in a language other than English, or the course is a registered ELICOS, school course or post‑graduate research course, obtain official evidence of course registration and enrolment showing the relevant registered status.

9. Keep copies of test reports and know reporting formats. Ensure that test reports are official, correctly named and match personal identity documentation. For OET, ensure that component results are individually documented. For electronic reporting tests (such as TOEFL iBT or PTE) understand the test provider’s report delivery mechanics and ensure that the Department will be able to verify the result.

10. Check which instrument governs your application. If the application was made before 6 June 2018 and was not finally determined by that date, the repealed instrument IMMI 16/019 continues to apply to that application (Schedule 2 Part 2). For applications made on or after commencement, IMMI 18/015 governs. Confirm the applicable instrument date at lodgement time to avoid procedural misapplication.

11. Cross‑reference definitions in the Migration Regulations and the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The instrument refers to definitions furnished in the Regulations and to the Australian Qualifications Framework definition in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). Consult those instruments for precise meanings of terms such as ELICOS, Defence student, Foreign Affairs student, Secondary exchange student, and the Australian Qualifications Framework.

12. Anticipate administrative requests and retain original documents. Because the instrument does not specify evidentiary forms, be prepared for the Department to request certified copies, originals or further explanation. Retain original test certificates, acceptance letters, enrolment confirmations and official transcripts to respond promptly to information requests.

13. Where uncertainty remains, document the basis for your approach. If you adopt a packaging arrangement or rely on an interpretive posture (for example, for what constitutes a “substantial component”), obtain written confirmation from the education provider and, where possible, obtain professional advice or an agency confirmation. The instrument does not create an internal appeals procedure specific to its provisions; standard review and challenge mechanisms under migration law apply.

Applying these steps will align the documentary record with the instrument’s specified tests, scores, timing and exemptions. Because the instrument fixes substantive standards but leaves procedural and evidentiary detail to the wider regulatory framework, meticulous documentation and timely submission of test evidence are the practical compliance priorities.