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

[2022] FedCFamC2G 246

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 246  

File number(s):	SYG 1860 of 2019
Judgment of:	JUDGE EGAN
Date of judgment:	14 April 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – Failure by first applicant to establish that there was an approved employer nomination in place in respect of the first applicant – failure to establish an entitlement to the grant of a visa – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.
Legislation:	Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth): Cl 186.223 of Schedule 2
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	9
Date of last submission/s:	31 March 2022
Date of hearing:	4 April 2022
Place:	Brisbane
Applicant:	Mr Singh as a self-represented litigant
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mills Oakley
Second Respondent:	Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

SYG 1860 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

SARVJEET SINGH
First Applicant

DOLLY
Second Applicant

AYAAN SINGH VIRK
Third Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	14 APRIL 2022

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.The Originating Application for Review filed on 23 July 2019 is dismissed.

2.The First Applicant and the Second Applicant par the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application for Review, fixed in the amount of $5,400.00.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE EGAN

Introduction

1. The first applicant is a citizen of the Republic of India who applied for a Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) Visa on 31 December 2016. The second and third applicants applied for visas as members of the first applicant’s family unit.

2. The first applicant sought the visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream to work in the nominated position Program or Project Administrator (ANZSCO 511112).

3. On 11 July 2019 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the visa on the basis that the first applicant did not meet the relevant criteria under clause 186.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’) because there was no approved nomination application in respect of the first applicant. The nomination application lodged by Randhawa Roadways Pty Ltd had been refused by a delegate on 18 July 2017.

4. It was a necessary precondition for the grant to the first applicant of the visa that the clause 186.223 criteria had been met.

5. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate because there was no evidence before it that the necessary criteria had been met. There was no evidence before the Court that the Tribunal had erred in that finding.

6. The first applicant’s failure to satisfy the relevant criteria was fatal to the grant of the visa applications in respect of all applicants, because none of them had satisfied the relevant criteria.

7. The applicants have failed to establish jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

8. The Originating Application for Review is without merit and is dismissed.

9. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate: AO

Dated:       14 April 2022