Wrong occupation nominated in a visa application
Giving regard to the nomination of an occupation being a constituent part of a valid visa application and clear terms of the application form – ‘what is your nominated occupation?’, the circumstances in which an applicant nominates a wrong occupation is very unlikely. Nevertheless, it may still be possible to find, as a matter of fact, that the occupation specified in the application form was not the nominated occupation. For example, there may be a mismatch between the occupations in question and the applicant’s qualifications and experience, the skills assessment sought, and the relevant assessing authority specified on the application form. The effect of inserting a wrong occupation in a visa application may be extremely detrimental and difficult to be remedied.
Singh (Migration)  AATA 5586
The applicant applied for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa in the nominated occupation of Life Mechanic. It was accompanied by evidence that he had applied for a skills assessment to the relevant assessing authority. He did not provide a skills assessment to the Department for Lift Mechanic, but a copy of a skills assessment in which he had been successfully assessed for the occupation of Electrical Engineering Technician. He claimed that he relied on the professional service of a migration agent who had prepared all the documents and nominated the occupation of Life Mechanic when he should have nominated Electrical Engineering Technician. The Tribunal considered that that the applicant might be dissatisfied with the service provided by the migration agent but there were other avenues open to him for complaint.
On the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant simply nominated the wrong occupation as a mistake, noting that he received a negative outcome for the skills assessment as a Life Mechanic. The Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision.
Lao (Migration)  AATA 5587
The applicant applied for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa in the nominated occupation of ICT Business Analyst. At the hearing, she stated that she made an error in her application. She had wanted to put her nominated occupation as ICT Sales Representative, but due to a clerical error she had inadvertently hit ICT Business Analyst. She said that as the occupations in the drop down box online was one after the other both starting with ICT it was a clerical error. She provided evidence that she had applied for a skills assessment for ICT Sales Representative on the same date she lodged her application. She also provided proof that she studied a Bachelor of Commerce majoring in Marketing and was employed as an ICT Sales Representative.
The Tribunal was satisfied that it was simply a clerical mistake and she had intended to apply for ICT Sales Representative and not ICT Business Analyst. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration.