Sanjeevaraj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1369

Sanjeevaraj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1369

Leave to rely on the proposed amended grounds was refused because the grounds lacked merit. The Tribunal properly considered and applied reg 1.11 when determining whether the wife had an ownership interest in an actively operating main business, did not impermissibly apply narrower departmental policy, was required to assess the primary criteria only for the wife as the valid primary visa applicant, and did not reason illogically, irrationally or legally unreasonably in finding that she did not satisfy cl 890.211.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Business Skills (residence) (class Df) Subclass 890 Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court; Application for Leave to Rely on New Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to rely on the draft amended notice of appeal was refused; appeal dismissed; appellants to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['business Skills (residence) (class Df) Subclass 890 Visa' 'ownership Interest in Actively Operating Main Business' 'direct and Continuous Involvement in Management of Business' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['business Skills (residence) (class Df) Subclass 890 Visa' 'ownership Interest in Actively Operating Main Business' 'direct and Continuous Involvement in Management of Business' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Business Skills (residence) (class Df) Subclass 890 Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court; Application for Leave to Rely on New Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to rely on proposed new grounds of appeal not raised before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued, misdirected itself or misapplied cl 890.211 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and reg 1.11(1)(b) by focusing on active involvement in management rather than whether the business was actively operating.' 'Whether the Tribunal applied departmental policy narrower than the statutory criterion.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider or make findings about the husband's 50% shareholding or separately for each appellant." "Whether the Tribunal's conclusion was illogical, irrational or legally unreasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to rely on the proposed amended grounds was refused because the grounds lacked merit. The Tribunal properly considered and applied reg 1.11 when determining whether the wife had an ownership interest in an actively operating main business, did not impermissibly apply narrower departmental policy, was required to assess the primary criteria only for the wife as the valid primary visa applicant, and did not reason illogically, irrationally or legally unreasonably in finding that she did not satisfy cl 890.211.

Court Disposition

Leave to rely on the draft amended notice of appeal was refused; appeal dismissed; appellants to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ["Leave to rely on the draft amended notice of appeal in the form annexed to the appellants' submissions filed on 1 September 2022 is refused." 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants are to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]