Twinn v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 840

Twinn v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 840

The Minister's Notice, although creating some tension in drafting, was authorised by the Regulations and could validly define 'skilled occupation' differently for applicants depending on their sponsor's postcode. The applicants failed to provide evidence of assessment of a skilled occupation as so defined in their case; thus, the application was invalid and dismissal was required.

Parties
First Applicant: Lisa Maureen Twinn; Second Applicant: Paul Christopher Twinn; Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Validity of Ministerial Notice, Interpretation of Migration Regulations, Criteria for Skilled Migration Visa
Administrative Law Immigration Law Validity of Ministerial Notice Interpretation of Migration Regulations Criteria for Skilled Migration Visa

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Maureen Twinn

First Applicant

Paul Christopher Twinn

Second Applicant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Minister's Notice are invalid as not authorised by regulations 1.03 and 1.17 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the definition of 'skilled occupation' can differ based on the sponsor’s postcode under the regulatory scheme
  3. 3 Whether the application for a Subclass 138 visa complied with the evidentiary requirements for assessment of skills

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's Notice, although creating some tension in drafting, was authorised by the Regulations and could validly define 'skilled occupation' differently for applicants depending on their sponsor's postcode. The applicants failed to provide evidence of assessment of a skilled occupation as so defined in their case; thus, the application was invalid and dismissal was required.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs.