Salam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1263

Salam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1263

Because the appellant was not nominated by an approved appointment due to the employer's application being refused, he did not meet the mandatory criteria under cl 856.221. As a result, the Tribunal and the primary judge were correct to dismiss the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'visa Criteria' 'migration Regulations']
['immigration'] ['judicial Review' 'visa Criteria' 'migration Regulations']

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

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['whether the appellant satisfied the requirements for a Subclass 856 visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), particularly cl 856.221' 'whether the Tribunal or primary judge misunderstood or misapplied the relevant criteria' 'whether there was any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant was not nominated by an approved appointment due to the employer's application being refused, he did not meet the mandatory criteria under cl 856.221. As a result, the Tribunal and the primary judge were correct to dismiss the application.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]