[mutapha]

I don't think you are statisfied the ASR. Please read the ASR regulations at MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.15F Australian study requirement

In (e) shows that courses required to complete a degree must be taken in Australia. Also, the minimum duration of the course is two academic year as (c). These conditions mean if your course is just two academic year and you used some courses as exemption or study outside Australia then you are not statisfied ASR. Because your degree in this case is less than two academic years after substracting the RPL.

By the way, did you apply and get visa 485 after your study in Australia?

 

[mutapha]

I can't find the details of your posted cases on AustLII. Not sure they are relevant to your case as the excerpts given here or even their validity.

I think that you want to find comments that support your ground of ASR rather than the opposite opinions. If it is the case you should better claim the point and bear the cost of the sequence.

FYI, look at pag 23-24 of https://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Documents/RELEASED-MRD-Commentary-Skilled-visas.pdf

115 See Riaz v MIBP [2013] FCCA 2244. 116 Riaz v MIBP [2013] FCCA 2244. In this case, the applicant had completed two registered courses, a certificate course and a diploma course, in a total of at least 16 calendar months, in English, while in Australia as the holder of a visa allowing him to study. The courses were registered for 52 and 40 weeks respectively. However, the diploma course included two subjects that were also included in the certificate course, and as the applicant had completed those subjects for the certificate course, his education provider did not require him to undertake them again for the diploma course. By reference to what was said in Nayeem v MIAC [2010] FMCA 980, the Tribunal found that because of this credit transfer the applicant did not complete the usual or normal or approved full-time workload of the courses, and so had not completed the courses as a result of 2 academic years study. The Court held that this approach involved jurisdictional error, and that following the introduction of a definition of ‘academic year’ the judgment in Nayeem was not determinative of the issue.

Accordingly, the relevant question for reg 1.15F(1)(c) is whether an applicant for the visa had ‘completed’, as defined in reg 1.15F(2), a course or courses that had been registered under the ESOS Act as having a duration of at least 92 weeks.117

There is another sentence related to RPL oversea that states that the same concept applies for RPL oversea.

So, according to the court, only course registration matters. I am just worried if case officers know about all of this I don't want to risk going to court.