Begum v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 227

By ground 3 the appellants contend that in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal failed to allow the appellants to provide another nomination to seek to meet the visa criteria.
This ground does not establish error because an applicant for a subclass 187 visa can only rely on the original nomination application in which they were nominated and which was declared at the time of the subclass 187 visa application: Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 105; 253 FCR 267 at [81]- [91] (Mortimer J, Jagot and Bromberg JJ agreeing at [1], [2] respectively). An applicant for a subclass 187 visa cannot rely on either a new nomination application lodged by the original nominator after the subclass 187 visa was lodged or a nomination application lodged by a new (alternative) nominator. No error has been demonstrated in the conclusion of the primary judge that the judicial review application lacked utility because the Tribunal would be bound to affirm the decision even if the matter were to be remitted.
Ground 3 must be dismissed.

By ground 4 the appellants contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the first appellant's qualifications and compassionate circumstances including the severe consequence of the withdrawal of the nomination. Further, that the Tribunal failed to make a "recommendation" to the Minister. This ground was not raised before the primary judge but has been briefly addressed by the Minister.
No error is established by this ground. The Tribunal expressly considered the first appellant's qualification: T [16]. As I have mentioned, the Tribunal referred to and acknowledged that it understood the circumstances attending the withdrawal of the nomination were difficult and out of the control of the appellants: T [20]. For the reasons already given, the Tribunal was not able to waive compliance with the requirements of cl 187.233(3) of Sch 2 of the Regulations by reason of any compelling or compassionate circumstances.
The final contention under this ground is that the Tribunal failed to refer the appellants' matter for Ministerial intervention. The Tribunal's referral or non-referral for Ministerial intervention was not within the discharge of the Tribunal's duty of review under the Migration Act and therefore is not amenable to judicial review: Fernandez v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1265 at [81] (Robertson J).
Ground 4 will be dismissed.

Begum v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 227 | Case summary | Zoe

By ground 3 the appellants contend that in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal failed to allow the appellants to provide another nomination to seek to meet the visa criteria.
This ground does not establish error because an applicant for a subclass 187 visa can only rely on the original nomination application in which they were nominated and which was declared at the time of the subclass 187 visa application: Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 105; 253 FCR 267 at [81]- [91] (Mortimer J, Jagot and Bromberg JJ agreeing at [1], [2] respectively). An applicant for a subclass 187 visa cannot rely on either a new nomination application lodged by the original nominator after the subclass 187 visa was lodged or a nomination application lodged by a new (alternative) nominator. No error has been demonstrated in the conclusion of the primary judge that the judicial review application lacked utility because the Tribunal would be bound to affirm the decision even if the matter were to be remitted.
Ground 3 must be dismissed.

By ground 4 the appellants contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the first appellant's qualifications and compassionate circumstances including the severe consequence of the withdrawal of the nomination. Further, that the Tribunal failed to make a "recommendation" to the Minister. This ground was not raised before the primary judge but has been briefly addressed by the Minister.
No error is established by this ground. The Tribunal expressly considered the first appellant's qualification: T [16]. As I have mentioned, the Tribunal referred to and acknowledged that it understood the circumstances attending the withdrawal of the nomination were difficult and out of the control of the appellants: T [20]. For the reasons already given, the Tribunal was not able to waive compliance with the requirements of cl 187.233(3) of Sch 2 of the Regulations by reason of any compelling or compassionate circumstances.
The final contention under this ground is that the Tribunal failed to refer the appellants' matter for Ministerial intervention. The Tribunal's referral or non-referral for Ministerial intervention was not within the discharge of the Tribunal's duty of review under the Migration Act and therefore is not amenable to judicial review: Fernandez v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1265 at [81] (Robertson J).
Ground 4 will be dismissed.

At a glance