Nawsabreen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute concerned the refusal of a Regional Employer Nomination visa, where the primary issue was whether the first applicant had an approved nomination as required by the Migration Regulations. The application was brought before Judge Kendall of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding that the nomination did not satisfy the legal requirements under subregulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations and clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Act. The applicants also contended that the Tribunal erred by not allowing them to find a new nominator.

Judge Kendall reasoned that the applicants' first ground of review, relating to subregulation 5.19(4), was without merit as this regulation concerned the sponsor's decision and was not part of the applicants' application or the Tribunal's reasons for refusal. Regarding clause 187.233, the court found that the Tribunal correctly identified that the first applicant was required to be the subject of an approved nomination, which he was not. The court affirmed the principle from *Singh v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection* [2017] FCAFC 105 that a nomination is a specific, "once off" process and cannot be substituted. Therefore, the Tribunal had no option but to affirm the refusal. The applicants' submission that they should have been allowed to find a new nominator did not constitute jurisdictional error.

The application for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001. The court found that the applicants had not shown a reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error.