Sikandar (Migration)

The applicant, Sikandar, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of his application for a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme), under the Direct Entry stream. The AAT's decision concerned the applicant's employment as a Recruitment Consultant, which was the subject of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's eligibility for the visa. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the AAT had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning the applicant's occupation and the employer's nomination.

Justice Galvin found that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the evidence regarding the applicant's employment as a Recruitment Consultant. The AAT had incorrectly concluded that the applicant's role did not align with the nominated occupation, thereby failing to engage with the substance of the applicant's case. The court applied the principles of administrative law, emphasizing the AAT's obligation to undertake a fresh consideration of the application and to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The court ordered that the AAT's decision be set aside and remitted to the AAT for redetermination according to law.