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

In the Federal Court of Australia, Street J heard an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) brought by four Indian citizens. The applicants sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 10 February 2021, which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant them Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) (Subclass 186) Visas. The applicants had applied for these visas on 21 June 2017, but both the delegate and the Tribunal found that they failed to meet the criteria under cl 186.223(2) of sch 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) because they did not have an approved nomination.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had committed a relevant error of law in affirming the delegate's decision. The applicants argued that the absence of an approved nomination was beyond their control and invited the Court to consider their circumstances, their desire to remain in Australia, and the interests of their children.

Street J reasoned that the Tribunal's decision was based on a correct application of the law. The Court accepted that the lack of an approved nomination was outside the applicants' control. However, this fact did not give rise to an arguable case of legal error by the Tribunal. The Court emphasised that the Tribunal's role was to determine whether the applicants met the prescribed criteria, and if they did not have an approved nomination, they could not succeed. The Court further held that it, like the Tribunal, had no power to determine the matter on compassionate or discretionary grounds. The submissions made by the applicants did not identify any arguable case of relevant error, and in substance, invited an impermissible merits review of the Tribunal's decision.

The application for a constitutional writ was dismissed.