Munir v Minister for Immigration

Munir sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal. The central dispute concerned whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the definition of "proficient English" as contained in regulation 1.15D of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The applicant also challenged the validity of the regulation itself, arguing that an instrument made under it, which nominated a non-existent language test and score, rendered the regulation invalid. The matter was heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Tribunal had incorrectly construed regulation 1.15D as providing an exhaustive definition of "proficient English". Secondly, the court had to consider whether the purported nomination of a non-existent language test and score under regulation 1.15D had the effect of invalidating the regulation itself.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that regulation 1.15D did not provide an exhaustive definition of "proficient English". Instead, the regulation set out a minimum standard, and the Tribunal's assumption that it was exhaustive constituted an error of law. However, the court found that the invalidity of the nominated language test did not render the regulation itself invalid. The regulation was a valid legislative instrument, and the error lay in the subsequent, flawed instrument made under it.

The application for review was therefore granted.