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

This matter concerned an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) brought by the applicants against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The application sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 10 February 2021, which affirmed the delegate's refusal to grant the applicants Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) (Subclass 186) Visas. The applicants, citizens of India, had applied for these visas on 9 June 2016.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the visas. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), particularly concerning the need for an approved nomination, and whether the Tribunal's process and findings were legally sound. The applicants also raised allegations of bias against the Tribunal.

Street J found that the applicants' failure to obtain an approved nomination was a fundamental impediment to their visa application, as they did not satisfy cl 186.223(2) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The Court noted that the Tribunal had provided the applicants with an opportunity to comment on this issue pursuant to s 359A of the Act, and that the applicants had participated in a hearing. The Court rejected the applicants' allegations of bias, stating there was no evidence to suggest the Tribunal had not approached the review with an open mind. The Court concluded that the applicants had not identified an arguable case for the relief sought, and that their submissions invited an impermissible review of the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

The application for a constitutional writ was dismissed.