Mangat v MHA

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) Subclass 457 visa. The applicant, Mr. Mangat, had been nominated by Trustee for Five Starlettes Trust for the position of a Café or Restaurant Manager. The Department had approved this nomination on 4 April 2016. The AAT affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had been given adequate notice of the determinative issue that led to the Tribunal's decision, and whether transitional provisions applied in a manner that would have altered the outcome. Specifically, the court had to consider if the Tribunal had erred in law by affirming the refusal based on the applicant not being the subject of an approved nomination that had not ceased at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The court found that the Tribunal had not committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had, in its letter of 11 April 2018, invited the applicant to provide information regarding whether he was the subject of an approved nomination and met specific clauses of the Migration Regulations. Furthermore, during the hearing, the Tribunal explicitly raised the issue of clause 457.224(4)(a), which requires an approved nomination by a standard business sponsor that has not ceased. The applicant himself provided evidence confirming his awareness that the nomination had ceased on 5 April 2017 and that he was not the subject of an approved nomination that had not ceased at the time of the Tribunal's decision. The court concluded that the applicant was sufficiently put on notice of the issue and had failed to demonstrate that he met the relevant criteria.

The application was dismissed.