H & L Hydroponics Pty Ltd as trustee for the H & L Hydroponics Trading Trust v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 825

Federal Court of Australia

H & L Hydroponics Pty Ltd as trustee for the H & L Hydroponics Trading Trust v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 825 Appeal from: Tran v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 563

File numbers: SAD 70 of 2021 SAD 71 of 2021

Judgment of: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 19 July 2022

Catchwords: MIGRATION — appeals from orders made by Federal Circuit Court of Australia — where appellant applied for nomination under reg 5.19 of Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) to sponsor two nominees for Subclass 186 visa — where delegate of Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Minister) refused nomination on basis that evidence does not demonstrate appellant able to offer full-time employment for at least 2 years — where appellant applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for merits review of decision of delegate — where Tribunal affirmed decision under review to refuse nomination — where appellant applied for judicial review of decision of Tribunal in Federal Circuit Court — where primary judge dismissed application for judicial review — whether primary judge erred in not deciding that Tribunal made jurisdictional error in applying incorrect test in relation to reg 5.19(3)(d)(i) in considering appellant's ability to pay relevant wages for at least 2 years and still make trading profit — whether primary judge erred in not deciding Tribunal made jurisdictional error in taking into account in each matter salary of nominee in other matter — whether primary judge erred in not deciding Tribunal made jurisdictional error in failing to accord procedural fairness to appellant in that it did not give appellant opportunity when requested to provide current financial information — whether primary judge erred in not deciding Tribunal made jurisdictional error in consideration of contract of employment in relation to requirement in reg 5.19(3)(d) of Regulations — appeals dismissed