Fatima v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1690

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Fatima v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1690

File number: MLG 2609 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION

Date of judgment: 17 October 2025

Catchwords: MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa – Where the primary applicant could only meet the mandatory criteria for the grant of a visa if her sponsor’s nomination of an occupation in relation to her was approved – Where her sponsor’s nomination was not approved –Where because the primary applicant was refused the visa a necessary consequence was that other members of her family unit were not granted visas – Application dismissed

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act (Cth) ss. 143, 256

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss. 140GB, 359A, 476

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) r. 23.08

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl. 457.223, 457.321

Cases cited:
LPTD v Minister for Immigration (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11

Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs 275 CLR 582; [2022] HCA 17

Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473

Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 31

Date of hearing: 13 October 2025

Applicants: Self-represented

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Rossi of Mills Oakley
ORDERS

MLG 2609 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
KANEEZ FATIMA

First Applicant

MOHIUDDIN MOHAMMED

Second Applicant

AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

17 OCOTBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicants’ application for review of the Registrar’s decision made on 28 August 2025 is dismissed.
2.The Applicants pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $800.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The application for review having been dismissed, the order made by Registrar Cummings on 28 August 2025 summarily dismissing the proceedings remains in effect.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CHAMPION:

The Applicants have filed an application under s. 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) seeking judicial review of the decision of the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant Temporary Business Entry (subclass 457) visas to them.
The Minister has brought an application that the application be summarily dismissed under r. 23.08 of the Federal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Fatima v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Fatima v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1690
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1690
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fatima v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) involved Ms Kaneez Fatima, a citizen of India, who applied for a Temporary Business Entry (subclass 457) visa to work as a Developer Programmer for Barakah Housing Pty Ltd. The visa application hinged on the approval of her sponsor's nomination of her occupation, which was not approved. This refusal had the consequence of denying visas to other family members who were dependent on the primary applicant's visa. The case was heard in the Australian court, and the decision in question concerned the dismissal of a summary application by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The Tribunal had previously refused the visa application based on the failure to meet the mandatory criteria for the grant of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the visa application based on the failure to meet the mandatory criteria. The court was required to determine if the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant legislative provisions and whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and just. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Tribunal appropriately applied the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in reaching its decision.

The court examined the Tribunal's decision and found that it had correctly identified that the primary applicant's visa application could only be granted if the mandatory criteria were met, which included an approved nomination of her occupation by the sponsor. As the nomination was not approved, the primary applicant did not meet the mandatory criteria, leading to the refusal of her visa. The court held that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and that the decision was lawful, reasonable, and just. The court dismissed the summary application by the Minister, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to refuse the visa application and dismissed the Minister's summary application. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and that the decision was lawful, reasonable, and just. As a result, the Applicants' visa applications were dismissed, and the family unit could not be granted visas.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Minister’s summary dismissal application is therefore to be decided by reference to the Applicants’ initiating application, the Minister’s submissions before the Registrar, his supplementary submissions before me and the affidavit of Ms Jami Klisaris made on 5 June 2025 (Ex R1) (to which I will return) and reasons in the relevant Tribunal decision.The Tribunal’s decision to refuse to grant the visa The Applicants comprise a family unit. Ms Kaneez Fatima (the First Applicant or primary applicant) is married to Mr Mohiuddin Mohammed (the Second Applicant or dependent applicant). I describe Mr Mohammed as a dependent applicant because the grant of a visa to Mr Mohammed depends on his status as a family member of Ms Fatima and the grant of a visa to her. Only Ms Fatima appeared before me although she said she had authority to speak on behalf of her husband, Mr Mohammed. Both applicants are citizens of India. Previously, there were also proceedings as to the Applicants’ children. The Applicants’ daughter was the Third Applicant and another dependent applicant where visa application depended on the grant of a visa to her mother. On 30 May 2025, the Applicants’ daughter discontinued her application. The Applicants’ minor son commenced a separate application in this court. On 7 May 2025, the Applicants’ minor son’s proceedings were discontinued. On 19 May 2017, the First Applicant applied for a Temporary Business Entry (subclass 457) visa based on her employment with Barakah Housing Pty Ltd (the sponsor) in the position of Developer Programmer. As the Tribunal noted (TR, [4]):A nomination of the occupation of Developer Programmer was made by Barakah Housing Pty Ltd in relation to the first named applicant (the applicant) on 17 January 2017. The application was not approved.[Emphasis added] The Tribunal had to grant the visa to the primary applicant if satisfied that she met the mandatory criteria and refuse the visa if not so satisfied. One mandatory criterion for the grant of the Temporary Business Entry (subclass 457) visa was that a business sponsor had an approved nomination for an applicant in employment in an occupation. The mandatory criteria for the grant of the visa were set out in Part 457 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (as in force at the relevant time). The requirements also referred to s. 140GB of the Act. Clause 457.223(4)(a) was as follows:(4) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:(a) each of the following applies:(i) a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved under section 140GB of the Act;[Emphasis added] Section 140GB(1)(a)(i) was as follows:140GB Minister to approve nominations(1) A person who is, or who has applied to be, an approved work sponsor, or a person who is a party to negotiations for a work agreement, may nominate: (a)an applicant, or proposed applicant, for a visa of a prescribed kind (however described), in relation to: (i) the applicant or proposed applicant's proposed occupation;…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	MLG 2609 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE CHAMPION
Date of judgment:	17 October 2025
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa – Where the primary applicant could only meet the mandatory criteria for the grant of a visa if her sponsor’s nomination of an occupation in relation to her was approved – Where her sponsor’s nomination was not approved –Where because the primary applicant was refused the visa a necessary consequence was that other members of her family unit were not granted visas – Application dismissed
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act (Cth) ss. 143, 256 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss. 140GB, 359A, 476 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) r. 23.08 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl. 457.223, 457.321
Cases cited:	LPTD v Minister for Immigration (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11 Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs 275 CLR 582; [2022] HCA 17 Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473 Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	31
Date of hearing:	13 October 2025
Applicants:	Self-represented
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr Rossi of Mills Oakley

MLG 2609 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	KANEEZ FATIMA First Applicant MOHIUDDIN MOHAMMED Second Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CHAMPION
DATE OF ORDER:	17 OCOTBER 2025