UDDIN v Minister for Immigration

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. The applicants sought to challenge a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) made on 29 September 2014, which affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant them Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas, specifically Subclass 457 visas. The applicants contended that the MRT had made jurisdictional error and error of law in its decision.

The core legal issues before the Court were whether the MRT had erred in law or jurisdiction in its assessment of the applicants' eligibility for Subclass 457 visas. Specifically, the applicants argued that the MRT had incorrectly determined that their business nomination had ceased and that they did not meet the requirements of cl 457.223(4)(a) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). They also contended that the MRT had failed to consider relevant material, such as the fact that their visa applications were lodged before 1 July 2013, and that the exclusion of the "Cook" occupation from certain legislative instruments did not apply to their applications. The applicants further argued that the MRT had wrongly interpreted the cessation provisions for nominations and had failed to adhere to principles of procedural fairness.

The Court found that the amended application was prolix and that none of the identified grounds of error were made out. The applicants' central argument revolved around the interpretation of cl 457.223(4) and the cessation of nominations under cl 2.75 of the Regulations. They asserted that their nomination, approved in June 2013, remained valid as their visa applications were lodged within 12 months of approval and before 1 July 2013. The Court noted the applicants' claim that the delegate had requested health checks and insurance in May 2013, suggesting the application was progressing. However, the Court ultimately concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated jurisdictional error or error of law on the part of the MRT. The Court referenced the principles of jurisdictional error as outlined in *Craig v South Australia*, noting that an error of law that causes a tribunal to identify a wrong issue, ask a wrong question, ignore relevant material, or rely on irrelevant material can constitute jurisdictional error. Despite the applicants' detailed arguments on these points, the Court found no such errors in the MRT's decision.

The application for a constitutional writ was dismissed.