The Skills Assessment That Expired Mid-Processing

Several dates interact and each must be checked against the criteria in force at the time of invitation:

1. Skills assessment validity. If the assessment is valid for three years from 12 June 2021, it expires on 12 June 2024. Lodgement on 28 August 2024 would be after expiry. The relevant question is whether the assessment was valid at the time of invitation (5 June 2024) or must be valid at time of decision - Marcus must check the specific criterion and the assessing authority's rules. On these facts it was still valid at invitation but will not be at decision unless renewed. The safe course is to obtain a new or extended assessment before lodging.
2. English test. The PTE on 2 May 2024 is recent and valid; Marcus should confirm the test date falls within the window the Department accepts relative to the application, and that the scores claimed (superior, 20 points if all components are 79+) are correctly reflected. Lin's points may actually be higher than the 65 calculated.
3. Invitation and EOI. The invitation date governs which criteria and points apply. Any change to the points claim after invitation must be consistent with the EOI; Marcus cannot simply add points not claimed in the EOI.
4. Visa expiry. The 485 expires 30 September 2024, so lodgement before that date is essential to keep Lin lawful; if lodgement slips, a bridging visa arrangement must be considered.

Marcus should verify the correct score against the points test as it applies at the time of invitation, then advise Lin accurately.

Reasoning:

• Points are assessed by reference to the claims made in the EOI and the invitation. If Lin genuinely qualifies for superior English (20 points rather than 15), the EOI may have understated the score. Marcus should check whether the invitation was issued on the basis of the EOI score and whether the correct score can be claimed at application.
• He must not inflate the claim to 'improve' the application; the score must be supportable by evidence (test results, assessment, employment evidence).
• If the EOI contained an error, Marcus should advise on the consequences: the Department assesses the claimed score, and a discrepancy between EOI and application can raise concerns. Where the error understates the score, the correct approach is generally to claim only what is evidenced and consistent, and to seek advice on whether a new EOI is required.
• Marcus should document the recalculation, the evidence, and the advice given.

Marcus must act diligently and keep the client fully informed of the risks, in writing.

• He should set out a lodgement plan with dates, identify the critical path (new skills assessment, finalising evidence), and warn Lin in writing that if lodgement does not occur before 30 September 2024 she may become unlawful.
• He should not promise an outcome or guarantee processing times.
• He should confirm instructions and fees in the engagement agreement, and record all advice.
• If the timeframe cannot be met, he should advise on alternatives (e.g. another visa pathway, departing Australia, or seeking advice on bridging arrangements) rather than lodging an incomplete or unsupported application.