Darshandhari (Migration)

The applicant, Darshandhari, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm a decision not to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), Direct Entry stream. The applicant's nominated occupation was Accountant (General). The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant's circumstances warranted Ministerial intervention to set aside the refusal of the visa application, particularly in light of the applicant being a victim of a visa scam and their current work arrangements being the subject of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's delegate erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the applicant's submission that unique or exceptional circumstances, including the exceptional economic benefit to Australia and the potential for unfair or unreasonable results, justified the exercise of the Minister's power under s 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to intervene. The court was required to determine if the delegate's assessment of these circumstances was reasonable and lawful.

The court reasoned that the delegate's decision had failed to properly engage with the applicant's arguments regarding exceptional circumstances. It was held that the delegate's conclusion that the applicant had not established "unique or exceptional circumstances" was based on an overly narrow interpretation of the relevant criteria. The court emphasised that the delegate should have given greater weight to the evidence presented concerning the economic benefit to Australia and the potential for an unfair outcome, particularly given the applicant's status as a victim of a visa scam. The principles of administrative law, including the requirement for a decision-maker to consider all relevant material and provide adequate reasons, were applied.

The court found that the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Consequently, the court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.