There may be scenarios where a visa applicant has obtained a qualification in Australia while they were the holder of a temporary visa. In these instances, a greater level of scrutiny is to be applied to the Registered Training Organisation (RTO), the course content, and the nature of the assessment items. Please note that such courses do not include those for which a student visa was granted.
It is a matter of concern that AQF certificates have been issued by RTOs without appropriate course work or assessment items having been completed. Where this occurred, assessment outcomes have been solely based on acceptance of Recognised Prior Learning (RPL) in the form of claimed but untested overseas qualifications and/or work experience, or both.
Apart from an unquestioned acceptance of RPL by RTOs, certificates that on the face of it appear to be genuine and AQF-accredited, may have been issued by RTOs with a questionable reputation in relation to the issuing of certificates.
If the course is a genuine RTO-provided learning pathway, including progressive assessment of learning outcomes achieved through classroom tuition and practical course work and/or work experience (where relevant), then some RPL-based assessment can form part of the completion and qualification requirements. As prescribed under the AQF provisions (www.aqf.edu.au/), RPL “may enable the student to meet entry requirements and/or components of the qualification. This may reduce the duration of the qualification.”
The rationale behind the concept of RPL understood this way is that it allows students of a course studied at one institution in a given location, to seek “credit transfer arrangements” (the term used within the AQF provisions) with a different institution in a different location, offering the same or similar course content. For the purpose of RSMS and under policy, RPL cannot substitute for all of the course content in a credit transfer arrangement but may only apply to a small number of completed assessment items.
Where case officers have concerns about the integrity of the claimed qualifications, they may choose to investigate the suitability of the course content, the nature and scope of the completed assessment items (including any RPL-based credit transfer arrangements), and the credibility of the RTO that issued the qualification. If not satisfied that the qualification genuinely reflects an appropriate level of assessment as evidence for skills acquired during a formal course of learning at a reputable RTO, then it may be open to the decision-maker to form the view that the requirements have not been met.
‘Certificates of completion’ that may be issued by RTOs are not recognised within the AQF framework and under policy cannot be accepted as evidence of claimed proficiency. Instead, a ‘Statement of attainment’ should be issued by a RTO when an individual has completed one or more accredited units.
Applicants without a qualification obtained in Australia may still claim to have satisfied the skill requirements on the basis of a specified number of years of work experience allowed by ANZSCO to substitute for the formal qualifications of the relevant occupation. In these instances, DHA scrutinise the supporting evidence provided. Where concerns exists, DHA undertake the necessary checks to establish the authenticity of past employers and the nature and duration of the work experience claimed before deciding on the genuineness of the claimed work experience.