Prasad v MIAC

The matter before the court was an appeal against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) by the applicant, Prasad, regarding the denial of a subclass 485 (skilled-graduate) visa. The Federal Magistrates Court had upheld the MRT's decision, and Prasad appealed to the court, arguing that both the Federal Magistrates Court and the MRT had erred in their interpretation of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 485.213(b), which requires the area of study to be "closely related" to the applicant's nominated skilled occupation. Prasad contended that the tribunal had misdirected itself by applying the wrong legal test and had thereby committed a jurisdictional error. Moreover, the MRT had declared the guidance in the ministerial policy manual as to the requirement that the study be "closely related" to the applicant's nominated skilled occupation to be unlawful.

The court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrates Court and the MRT had correctly interpreted the term "closely related" as it applied to the applicant's area of study and nominated skilled occupation. The court also needed to consider whether the Federal Magistrates Court had failed to appreciate that the MRT had directed itself to the wrong question, thereby committing a jurisdictional error. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Prasad's failure to include the alternative case in his notice of contention resulted in the respondent being unable to raise the alternative case, which was only presented in written and oral submissions.

The court found that neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor the MRT had erred in their interpretation of the term "closely related." The court approved the Federal Magistrates Court's preference for and adoption of the construction of the definition of "closely related" as outlined in Uddin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 1281. The court held that the Federal Magistrates Court had not failed to appreciate that the MRT had directed itself to the wrong question, and therefore no jurisdictional error had been committed. Consequently, the MRT's declaration that the guidance in the ministerial policy manual was unlawful was not disturbed by the court. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent was not deprived of the opportunity to raise the alternative case as it had only been presented in written and oral submissions, and no costs were awarded to the respondent as a result.

The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs. The entry of orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.