Nauru Air Corporation v Minister for Immigration

Nauru Air Corporation sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), which affirmed a delegate's refusal to approve a nomination for a subclass 186 Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa for its employee, Ms. Ellamaine Detenamo. The applicant argued that the MRT had taken into account irrelevant considerations, constituting jurisdictional error. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the MRT's decision was affected by such errors.

The court was required to consider two grounds of review. Firstly, whether the MRT erred by taking into account Ms. Detenamo's employment classification under the Airline Operations - Ground Staff Award 2010 as "Clerical and Administrative Stream, Level 3" when assessing her nominated occupation. Secondly, the applicant contended that the MRT considered irrelevant information by referring to the Australian Society of Archivists' website when defining the occupation of an archivist.

The court found no jurisdictional error on either ground. Regarding the first ground, it held that Ms. Detenamo's employment contract and classification were relevant to determining the occupation she actually carried out, which was a necessary step in assessing whether the nominated occupation met the requirements of regulation 5.19(3)(a)(iii)(B) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The court noted that the award classification was used to add weight to the tribunal's findings, not as a sole determinative factor, and that the applicant had itself placed the employment contract before the tribunal. Concerning the second ground, the court found that the tribunal's reference to the Australian Society of Archivists' website was a reasonable step in understanding the nature of the archivist occupation, particularly in light of the applicant's submission that the ANZSCO code allowed for more irregularities and nuances than a professional body's description. The court concluded that the tribunal's approach was consistent with its task of assessing the nominated occupation against the occupation actually carried out by the visa holder.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's amended application. The court also ordered that the name of the second respondent be amended to the "Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly known as the Migration Review Tribunal)" and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs.