Background
Jagjit Singh applied for a Regional Employer Nomination (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa in the Direct Entry stream after Far Qld Pty Ltd nominated him in November 2016. His family members were included as dependants. The employer withdrew its nomination in November 2018, and Singh did not respond to the Department’s invitation to comment. A delegate then refused the visa because the nomination criterion in cl 187.233 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was not satisfied.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the refusal. It concluded that the visa application was tied to the original nomination and could not be saved by a later nomination from the same or a different employer. The Federal Circuit and Family Court dismissed the appellants’ judicial-review application, after which they appealed to the Federal Court, alleging jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, misinterpretation of the Regulations and failure to consider their individual circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
Bennett J dismissed the appeal. Clause 187.233 required an approved, unwithdrawn nomination for the particular position and employer identified in the visa application. Because the employer had withdrawn that nomination, the criterion could not be met. A later nomination could not cure the defect because the nomination and visa application formed a one-off, specifically connected process.
The Court found no denial of procedural fairness. The appellants had been notified of the withdrawal, invited to present their case before the Tribunal, assisted by a Punjabi interpreter and given opportunities to file materials and make submissions in the lower court. The Tribunal was also entitled to refuse additional time to locate another employer because another nomination could not save the existing visa application.
Complaints about earlier visa decisions, departmental delay, family hardship and humanitarian circumstances did not identify error in the judgment under appeal. Those matters invited merits review or concerned decisions not before the Court. Even if an error had been shown, remittal would have been futile because no qualifying nomination existed. The appellants were ordered to pay costs, subject to any timely application for a different costs order.
Key Takeaways
- A Subclass 187 Direct Entry visa application was tied to the specific employer nomination identified when the application was made.
- Withdrawal of that nomination prevented satisfaction of cl 187.233, and a later nomination by the same or another employer could not revive the application.
- Hardship, departmental delay and dissatisfaction with earlier administrative decisions do not establish jurisdictional error unless legally connected to the decision under review.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the strict linkage between a Subclass 187 Direct Entry visa application and its original employer nomination. Once that nomination is withdrawn, neither additional time to find another sponsor nor a replacement nomination can ordinarily preserve the existing application.
It also illustrates the limits of judicial review in migration matters: courts examine legal error in the challenged decision, not the overall fairness or humanitarian consequences of an applicant’s immigration history.