Enuganti v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) brought by the applicant, a citizen of India, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 12 June 2019, which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Subclass 187) (Direct Entry Stream) Visa. The delegate had refused the visa application because the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 187.233(5) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The applicant's grounds of review alleged denial of natural justice, unreasonableness, and failure by the Tribunal to consider relevant information. The Tribunal had requested evidence of an approved nomination, which the applicant stated he did not possess. Despite attending a hearing without his representative and being refused an adjournment, the Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa, specifically cl 187.223(3), due to the absence of an approved nomination.

Street J held that the applicant's grounds of review, as presented without particulars, failed to disclose an arguable case of relevant error. The Court found that the Tribunal had complied with its statutory obligations and that the absence of an approved nomination provided an evident and intelligible justification for the adverse decision. The applicant's personal circumstances explaining the lack of an approved nomination were not matters capable of establishing error, as an approved nomination was a mandatory criterion. Consequently, the Court was not satisfied that an arguable case for the relief claimed had been raised, and the application was dismissed under r 44.12 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth).