Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The case of Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involves an appeal against the refusal of a skilled visa application. The dispute primarily concerns the interpretation of the term “a closely related skilled occupation” under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and whether the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) correctly applied this criterion in assessing the appellant’s eligibility. The appellant, Ms. Bhanot, applied for a skilled visa and claimed that she had been employed in a closely related skilled occupation to her nominated occupation as an accountant. The Tribunal refused her application, and she appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal asked the correct question when determining whether Ms. Bhanot satisfied the visa criterion of being employed in a closely related skilled occupation. The court considered the Tribunal's approach in evaluating the appellant's occupation as a whole versus focusing narrowly on a specific role within her employment. The court examined whether the Tribunal's error in this regard amounted to a jurisdictional error. The court held that while the Tribunal may consider various factors in its assessment, it was required to evaluate the occupation as a whole and not merely a part of it. The court found that the Tribunal erred by characterising certain accounting tasks as incidental and thus excluded them from its consideration.

The court concluded that the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question when determining whether Ms. Bhanot had been employed in a closely related skilled occupation. The Tribunal focused on the appellant’s role as a Retail Customer Service Manager and Night Manager, rather than considering her entire occupation. This narrow approach led to an incomplete assessment, as the Tribunal did not adequately consider the accounting tasks performed by Ms. Bhanot. Consequently, the court found that the Tribunal's decision was flawed and quashed the decision of the Tribunal. The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the Tribunal must determine the appellant's application according to law. Additionally, the court granted a writ of mandamus to compel the Tribunal to reassess the application.