Patel v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 501

Patel v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 501

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the grounds did not raise any arguable case of relevant error, and there was no doubt as to the correctness of the earlier decisions; the absence of an approved nomination meant a critical visa criterion was not met, so the review and appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against first and second applicants.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Migration Decisions' 'leave to Appeal' 'requirements for Subclass 187 Visa' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal' 'Whether grounds for leave to appeal were sufficiently particularised and substantial' 'Whether the requirements for Subclass 187 visa were met, specifically relating to nomination withdrawal']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the grounds did not raise any arguable case of relevant error, and there was no doubt as to the correctness of the earlier decisions; the absence of an approved nomination meant a critical visa criterion was not met, so the review and appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against first and second applicants.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The first and second applicants pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]