Chumber v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 257

1. The primary judge set out the history of the matter. That history is not challenged on appeal.
2. Before the primary judge, the appellants raised two grounds of review.
3. The first ground asserted jurisdictional error. It contained no particulars, such that the primary judge was left with a bald assertion of jurisdictional error. On that basis, the primary judge found that no error arose and dismissed that ground.
4. The second ground concerned a request by the appellants before the Tribunal for an adjournment of the hearing before the Tribunal.
5. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the appellants requested that the Tribunal "link" a further nomination for sponsorship but by a different employer to that named in the original 457 visa application and requested an adjournment.
6. The Tribunal considered the request for an adjournment but refused the request on the basis that in the 3 years since the application for review was lodged with the Tribunal against the delegate's refusal of the 457 visa, no new nomination had been approved. Further, there was no guarantee that any new nomination would be successful.
7. The primary judge considered the Tribunal's reasons and determined that the Tribunal had considered the application for an adjournment but that the possibility of a positive outcome using a new sponsorship was speculative.
8. Further, the primary judge considered that the Tribunal's decision to refuse an adjournment contained an evident and intelligible justification such that it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal not to adjourn the matter.
9. In forming that conclusion, the primary judge considered that it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal not to adjourn the matter in circumstances where the appellants were on notice of the delegate's decision on 1 October 2018 that the first appellant was not the subject of an approved nomination as required by cl 457.223(4) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
10. The primary judge concluded that no error arose on the second ground.
11. The primary judge continued: at J [72]-[74] that the appellants' application for the 457 visa had been refused because the first appellant was not the subject of an approved nomination.
12. Under those circumstances, the primary judge concluded: at J [75] by explaining that in circumstances where the first applicant was not the subject of an approved nomination and cannot satisfy the criteria in the relevant regulations, even if the matter were remitted to the Tribunal, the application could not succeed such that any remittal would be futile.

1. The appellants appeal from the primary judge's decision on two grounds:

(1) The primary judge ignored the relevant factual background of the refusal of the visa; and

(2) The primary judge did not take account of the first appellant's fresh application to the Court pursuant to "rule 4.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ...".

1. The first appellant represented himself and also appeared on behalf of the second appellant.
2. The first appellant had requested the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter who was available and attended by AVL, however he was content to present his submissions, without the use of the interpreter.
3. Ground one asserts that the primary judge ignored the relevant factual background of the refusal of the visa.
4. The first appellant did not complain of any error on the part of the primary judge. Rather, the first appellant repeated, in broad terms, the factual background set out by the primary judge in the reasons: J [1]-[39]. To that, he added that the appellants have a 9 year old son who cannot get a bridging visa such that if they leave Australia, they cannot return with their son. The first appellant said it was now some 14 years since he had returned to India.
5. No further facts or submissions were presented by the first appellant which reveal any error on the part of the primary judge. Ground one fails.

1. Ground two contends that the primary judge did not take into account a fresh application with the Court.
2. The only matter before the primary judge was the application for a judicial review.
3. It is not clear what the fresh application is but the reference to "rule 4.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia" is a reference to filed offers.
4. In any event, the first appellant did not assert any error on the part of the primary judge and no error has been shown such that this ground also fails.

1. It is for these reasons that the appeal is dismissed.
2. The first respondent seeks two orders:

(1) The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.

(2) The appellants pay the first respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan.