Sidhu 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, citizens of India, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute arose from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 26 March 2021, which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) (Subclass 187) Visas. The delegate and the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to satisfy a requirement under cl 187.233(3) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) due to the absence of an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision. The applicants contended, among other grounds, that the Tribunal had not properly reviewed their file, had not given them a fair chance to represent themselves, and had overlooked facts and evidence presented. Specifically, they argued that the dismissal of their nomination was unfair and that they had not received communication regarding associated nomination applications, nor had they been given a fair hearing.

Street J found that the applicants' contentions were without substance. The Tribunal had squarely raised the issue of the lack of an approved nomination with the applicants under s 359A of the Act, thereby affording them procedural fairness and a genuine hearing. The Court noted that the absence of an approved nomination was an essential criterion for the visa, and regardless of the reasons for its absence, the applicants could not succeed without it. The Court determined that the applicants' submissions invited an impermissible merits review and did not disclose any arguable case of jurisdictional error or unfair hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.