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

In *Maniam v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision not to grant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant had a right to merits review before the Tribunal, given the circumstances at the time of lodging the review application. The matter was heard by Manousaridis J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the visa refusal. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the applicant met the requirements of section 338(2)(d) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for a decision to refuse a temporary visa to be a "Part 5-reviewable decision". This involved determining whether, at the time of the review application, the applicant was identified in an approved or pending nomination, or whether there was a pending review of a decision not to approve the sponsor or the nomination.

Manousaridis J reasoned that the Tribunal's finding of no jurisdiction was correct. The Court noted that section 338(2)(d) of the Act sets out specific conditions for a visa refusal to be reviewable by the Tribunal. These conditions require that, at the time of the review application, the applicant must be sponsored by an approved sponsor, or there must be a pending review of a decision not to approve the sponsor or the nomination. The Tribunal found that these conditions were not met because the applicant was not identified in an approved or pending nomination, nor was there a pending review of a sponsorship or nomination decision when the review application was lodged. The applicant's argument that the Department's decision notice incorrectly indicated a right of review was not determinative of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.