Muhammad v Minister for Immigration

Muhammad (the applicant) sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse his application for a business skills visa. The applicant was a shareholder in a company that owned units in a unit trust, which in turn carried on a business. The Minister's decision was based on the applicant not having a direct "ownership interest" in the business as required by the visa criteria.

The primary legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the applicant possessed an "ownership interest" in the business for the purposes of the business skills visa, and whether the delegate's decision was affected by an error in the application of the Departmental Policy Advice Manual or was otherwise unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to determine if being a shareholder in a company that held units in a unit trust, which operated the business, constituted a sufficient ownership interest.

Justice Lucev found that the delegate had erred in their interpretation of "ownership interest" by requiring a direct proprietary interest in the business itself, rather than considering the applicant's indirect interest through his shareholding in the company. The court held that the Departmental Policy Advice Manual, properly understood, permitted an indirect ownership interest through a corporate structure. Consequently, the delegate's decision was found to be unreasonable as it was based on a misapplication of the relevant policy and a misunderstanding of the applicant's beneficial interest in the business.

The court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.