Sandhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 698

Sandhu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 698

Mr Sandhu's skills as a cook had not been assessed as suitable by the relevant assessing authority (Trades Recognition Australia) at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, he did not satisfy the mandatory criterion for the grant of the visa under cl 485.221. The Tribunal and the primary judge were correct to dismiss his application, and no appellable or jurisdictional error was established.

Parties
Appellant: Harjeet Singh Sandhu; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Skilled (subclass 485) Visa, Skills Assessment, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Migration Law Administrative Law Skilled (subclass 485) Visa Skills Assessment Judicial Review Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harjeet Singh Sandhu

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the mandatory skills assessment criterion for the visa under Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 485.221
  2. 2 Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or primary judge committed jurisdictional error
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal or primary judge failed to afford procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sandhu's skills as a cook had not been assessed as suitable by the relevant assessing authority (Trades Recognition Australia) at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, he did not satisfy the mandatory criterion for the grant of the visa under cl 485.221. The Tribunal and the primary judge were correct to dismiss his application, and no appellable or jurisdictional error was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.