Kamruzzaman 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) by the applicants, citizens of Bangladesh, seeking review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had affirmed a delegate’s decision to refuse the first applicant an Employer Nomination visa, and consequently, the visas for his spouse and child. The refusal was based on the applicants' failure to meet subclause 186.223(2) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) due to the absence of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering all aspects of the applicants' claims, as alleged in the sole ground of the application. The Court was also required to consider the applicants' oral application for an adjournment, which was opposed by the respondent.

Street J reasoned that the applicants' sole ground of appeal, lacking particulars, was incapable of identifying an arguable error by the Tribunal. The Court found that no relevant aspect of the applicants' case had been overlooked by the Tribunal, and crucially, that the absence of an approved nomination meant the application could not succeed. The Tribunal was found to have complied with its procedural fairness obligations, having invited the applicants to comment on the dispositive issue and its adverse findings being logical and supported by the evidence. The Court also accepted that granting relief would be futile given the lack of an approved nomination. Consequently, the Court was not satisfied that an arguable case for relief had been raised and dismissed the application under r 44.12 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth). The oral application for an adjournment was also dismissed, with the Court finding no utility in granting it and no warrant in the interests of the administration of justice.