Singh 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 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision on 20 December 2018, which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RM) Visas. The applicants had applied for these visas in 2015, but the delegate refused the application in 2017, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal after the applicants failed to provide requested evidence regarding an approved nomination.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider all the facts, as alleged in the applicants' ground of application. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicants had raised an arguable case of relevant error in the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of their visa applications, particularly in light of the absence of an approved nomination. The Court was not empowered to conduct a merits review or consider the applicants' personal circumstances or hardship.

Street J reasoned that the applicants' ground of application, alleging the Tribunal did not consider all the facts, was insufficient to disclose an arguable case of jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had identified the critical issue of the lack of an approved nomination and had afforded the applicants an opportunity to respond, which they did not take. The Court found that the matters raised by the first applicant, including concerns about the refusal to approve the nomination and his personal circumstances, did not demonstrate that the Tribunal had exceeded its statutory powers or made an arguable error in its decision. The Court also accepted that granting relief would be futile given the absence of an approved nomination and no ongoing proceedings concerning that refusal.

Consequently, the Court was not satisfied that the application had raised an arguable case for the relief claimed and exercised its powers under r 44.12 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth) to dismiss the application.