Dhillon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 86

Dhillon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 86

Although the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to provide information required by s 359A(1), relief was properly refused because it would have been futile: there was no approved nomination before the Tribunal, the first appellant therefore did not satisfy the required visa criterion, the second appellant could not satisfy the family-unit criterion, and the Tribunal was bound to affirm the delegate's refusal. No appellable error was otherwise shown in the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal of the judicial review application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 359 A(1)' 'futility of Relief' 'employer Nomination (residence) (class Bw) Visa' 'joinder and Standing']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 359 A(1)' 'futility of Relief' 'employer Nomination (residence) (class Bw) Visa' 'joinder and Standing']

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 Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) visas." "Whether the Tribunal's failure to give particulars under s 359A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) amounted to jurisdictional error requiring relief." 'Whether relief should be refused because remittal to the Tribunal would be futile.' "Whether the appellants' child should be joined as a third appellant in the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to provide information required by s 359A(1), relief was properly refused because it would have been futile: there was no approved nomination before the Tribunal, the first appellant therefore did not satisfy the required visa criterion, the second appellant could not satisfy the family-unit criterion, and the Tribunal was bound to affirm the delegate's refusal. No appellable error was otherwise shown in the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal of the judicial review application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs limited to those costs incurred before, but not after, 30 October 2017, and excluding any costs relating to the matters in the notice of contention which may have been incurred before 30 October 2017.']