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

In *Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, Street J of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, a citizen of India, sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 22 February 2019. The Tribunal had affirmed the delegate of the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination Subclass 187 Visa, primarily because the applicant lacked an approved nomination, a requirement under cl 187.233 of sch 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision. The applicant's grounds of appeal alleged that the Tribunal made jurisdictional error, failed to consider his application despite claiming his occupation was nominated, and that both the delegate and the Tribunal made mistakes and failed to follow the rules. The Court specifically considered whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no approved nomination, and the applicant's consequent failure to meet the visa criteria, was legally sound.

Street J reasoned that the applicant was on notice regarding the absence of an approved nomination, both from the initial delegate's decision and subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with opportunities to comment on this deficiency, including inviting him to a hearing, which he did not attend. The Court found that the Tribunal correctly identified the requirement for an approved nomination and that the applicant's failure to provide one meant he did not meet the relevant visa criteria. While acknowledging that the absence of an approved nomination might have been outside the applicant's control, the Court concluded that this did not provide a basis for finding error in the Tribunal's decision. The first ground of appeal, alleging jurisdictional error without particulars, was deemed incapable of identifying any arguable error.