Heenatigala v Minister for Immigration

The applicants, Heenatigala and another, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the Delegate's decision to refuse them a Regional Employer Nomination Visa. The Delegate had refused the visa because the first applicant did not meet a criterion under Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and, crucially, the sponsorship nomination had been withdrawn.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error in affirming the Delegate's decision. Specifically, the court was required to consider the implications of the withdrawn nomination on the visa application and whether the Tribunal's handling of this matter constituted a failure to exercise its jurisdiction according to law.

The court found that the Tribunal had not committed a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal correctly identified that a key criterion for the visa was that the nominated position must have been approved, not subsequently withdrawn, and must still be available. The Tribunal noted the applicant's admission that the nomination had been withdrawn, rendering the position unavailable. While the applicant raised concerns about the timing of the refusal and her personal circumstances, including a new visa application, these did not alter the fact that the original nomination was withdrawn. The Tribunal's statements that it had no influence over the timing of departmental decisions and its suggestion to provide medical evidence to the department were appropriate responses within its remit.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.