Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The appellant, Mr Rana Ahmad, appealed against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia that dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had held that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision to refuse the appellant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa. The primary issues before the court were whether the appellant was sponsored by an approved sponsor and whether there was a pending application for review of the decision not to approve the sponsor as a standard business sponsor. The relevant facts involved Mr Ahmad's application for a subclass 457 visa, his sponsoring employer Rana & Khan Property Group Pty Ltd's (RKP) nomination application, and the Minister's delegate's decision to refuse the nomination on the basis that the position was not genuine. The Minister also refused to grant Mr Ahmad a subclass 457 visa, citing that RKP was not an approved standard business sponsor.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision to refuse the subclass 457 visa, as per s 338 of the Migration Act. The section stipulated that a decision to refuse to grant a non-citizen a visa was an MRT-reviewable decision if certain conditions were met, including being sponsored by an approved sponsor at the time the application to review the decision was made or having a pending application for review of a decision not to approve the sponsor. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, the purpose of the legislation, and the definitions of "nominated" and "sponsored." Ultimately, the court concluded that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision to refuse the subclass 457 visa because the appellant's application for review was made while the application for review of the nomination decision was pending.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and remitted the application for review to the Tribunal for hearing and determination according to law. The Minister was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal. The court also declared that the Tribunal had jurisdiction in relation to the appellant's application for review dated 22 May 2014.