Manik v MIAC

The case of Manik v MIAC involved an appeal by the appellant against a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) that the courses he had studied were not closely related to his nominated skilled profession, which resulted in his application for a skilled visa being rejected. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the evidence and submissions presented, and that it should have followed the Department's guidance that a complementary relationship between the study and the profession was sufficient. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues were whether the Tribunal had given proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the evidence and submissions, whether it had erred in not following the Department's guidance, and whether the Tribunal had correctly distinguished between a qualification that was closely related to the nominated occupation and one that was merely complementary. The court had to determine whether there was any jurisdictional error evident from the Tribunal's reasoning and if the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant test for determining the relationship between the study and the profession.

The court held that the Tribunal had given proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the evidence and submissions, and that it had correctly distinguished between a qualification that was closely related to the nominated occupation and one that was merely complementary. The court also held that the Tribunal was not bound to follow the Department's guidance and that it was correct to apply the relevant test for determining the relationship between the study and the profession. The court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The court made an order that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was correct and that the appellant's appeal was without merit. The court also held that the appellant should bear the costs of the proceedings.