Islam v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 131

Islam v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 131

Because the relevant nomination application by Vision Smart Pty Ltd had been refused and was not the subject of a review application, there was no approved nomination for the visa. The first appellant therefore could not satisfy the mandatory requirement in cl 187.233(3) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), and the dependent applicants' applications also failed. The notice of appeal did not identify any error in the Tribunal's reasoning or in the primary judge's conclusion that no jurisdictional error was apparent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['regional Employer Nomination (permanent) (class Rn) Subclass 187 Visa' 'regional Sponsored Migration Scheme' 'approved Nomination Requirement' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['regional Employer Nomination (permanent) (class Rn) Subclass 187 Visa' 'regional Sponsored Migration Scheme' 'approved Nomination Requirement' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of the visa applications." "Whether the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering all aspects of the appellants' claims." 'Whether the first appellant could satisfy cl 187.233(3) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) where the relevant employer nomination had not been approved.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the relevant nomination application by Vision Smart Pty Ltd had been refused and was not the subject of a review application, there was no approved nomination for the visa. The first appellant therefore could not satisfy the mandatory requirement in cl 187.233(3) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), and the dependent applicants' applications also failed. The notice of appeal did not identify any error in the Tribunal's reasoning or in the primary judge's conclusion that no jurisdictional error was apparent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The first and second appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal as taxed or agreed." 'The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.']