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

Street J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicants, citizens of India, sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) made on 9 April 2020. The AAT had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Class EN) (Subclass 186) Visas. The refusal was based on the applicants' failure to meet the criteria under cl 186.223 of sch 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), specifically the absence of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT's decision involved an arguable error of law. The applicants' grounds of review essentially recounted the history of their visa application and its refusal, expressing dissatisfaction with the AAT's outcome and seeking a "fair trial" in the Federal Court. The Court was required to determine if these grounds disclosed a jurisdictional error or any other relevant legal error on the part of the Tribunal.

Street J reasoned that the applicants' grounds of review did not identify any arguable error of law. The Court noted that dissatisfaction with a decision or disagreement with its outcome does not, in itself, constitute a basis for finding an arguable case of relevant error. The Court found that the material before it indicated the applicants had received a real and meaningful hearing, and there was no basis to conclude the hearing was unfair. The absence of an approved nomination had been raised with the applicants by both the delegate and the Tribunal, including through a notice under s 359A of the Act, and the applicants had failed to respond to the Tribunal's invitation to comment on this issue. Consequently, the Court concluded that the grounds of review did not raise an arguable case for the relief sought.

The Court was satisfied that this was an appropriate matter in which to exercise its powers under r 44.12 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth). Accordingly, the application was dismissed.