Nawaz v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 198

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. This is an application for judicial review pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made 7 May 2020, affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) made 6 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination Scheme (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa (visa).
2. The hearing of the application for review was heard at the same time as an application by the proposed employer, Alnoor Logistics Pty Ltd (Alnoor), in proceeding MLG1745/2020 where Alnoor sought judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal made 20 April 2020 to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister made 19 July 2017 to refuse the approval of an employer nomination by the applicant, pursuant to reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (related proceeding).
3. The parties agree that the outcome of the related proceeding will determine the outcome of this application for judicial review and that if the application for review by Alnoor in the related proceeding is unsuccessful, then this application for judicial review in the related proceeding must also fail.
4. References in these reasons to 'CB' pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court and designed exhibit 'R1'.

1. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan (CB 2). He was first employed by Alnoor in July 2011 (CB 6). On 12 May 2017, he applied for the visa (CB 1-11).
2. On 19 July 2017, the delegate refused the application by Alnoor for approval of the nomination (CB 27-30).
3. On 6 September 2017, a delegate of the Minister refused the applicant's application for the visa because he was not the subject of an approved nomination (CB 35-7).
4. On 13 September 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the delegate's decision (CB 38-9).
5. On 12 March 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments on 15 April 2020 (CB 48-51).
6. On 15 April 2020, the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal. The applicant appeared assisted by his solicitor, Ms Wisser. The accountant for Alnoor, Mr Puljic also gave oral evidence (CB 66-71).
7. On 21 April 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the decision of the Tribunal made 20 April 2020 refusing the application for nomination made by Alnoor. In particular, the applicant was asked to comment on reg 186.223(2) of the Regulations that requires an approved nomination from a nominating employer. In the absence of an approved nomination, the delegate's decision under review would be affirmed (CB 74-5). The applicant did not respond to the request for comment.
8. On 7 May 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 79-82) (Decision).

1. In the Decision, the Tribunal found that the requirements of reg 186.223(2) were not met because the applicant did not have an approved nomination from a nominating employer (CB 81 [9]-[14]).

1. On 11 June 2020, the applicant applied for judicial review of the Decision.
2. On 11 November 2025, the applicant filed an outline of written submissions and sought to amend the application for judicial review. In the amended application, the applicant identified the following ground of review:
   1. The Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in the case of the nomination application that corresponds with the Applicant's Employer Nomination Scheme (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa application.

Particulars

a. On 20 April 2020, the Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the First Respondent on 19 July 2017 to refuse to approve the Applicant's employer (Alnoor Logistics Pty Ltd)'s application for approval of the nomination of a position under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

b. On 22 May 2020, the Applicant's employer applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision and that application is the subject of proceedings: MLG1745/2020 in this Court.

c. On 7 May 2020, the Tribunal refused to grant the Applicant an Employer Nomination Scheme (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa on the basis of there being no approved nomination in accordance with cl. 186.223 (2) of the Regulations.

d. Given the relationship between the corresponding nomination application and the Applicant's Employer Nomination Scheme (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa application, the outcome of the subject application for judicial review is dependent on the outcome of proceedings: MLG1745/2020 in this Court.

1. The hearing of the application for judicial review took place at the same time as the related proceeding in person at Melbourne on 2 December 2025. Ms Anang, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hutton, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Minister.
2. At the hearing, the only evidence relied on were the documents in the Court Book which was tendered without objection (Exhibit 'R1').
3. Leave was granted, without opposition, to amend the application for judicial review in the form annexed to the applicant's outline of written submissions filed 11 November 2025.

1. The applicant relied on the outline of written submissions filed 11 November 2025 in which it was conceded that the outcome of this proceeding is dependent on the outcome of the related proceeding.

1. The minister relied on an outline of written submissions dated 25 November 2025 in which it was submitted that there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in the Decision because the applicant did not have an approved nomination at the time of the Decision. The Minister also submitted that the applicant has no standing to seek review of the decision of the Tribunal which is the subject of consideration in the related proceeding.

1. The amended application for judicial review in the related proceeding has been dismissed because there was no material jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal under review. Therefore, the decision to affirm the rejection of the nomination by Alnoor in support of the visa has not been set aside.
2. It follows that there was no material jurisdictional error in the Decision of the Tribunal affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
3. The amended application for review is dismissed.

1. The Minister sought an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship', which is the current Ministerial title which changed on 13 May 2025.

1. Costs should follow the event. The Minister sought the costs and disbursements of and incidental to the amended application for judicial review in the sum of $6,500.00, which is less than the scale amount for a contested application concluded at a final hearing provided for in Sch 2, Pt 3, Div 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). However, costs in that sum were awarded in the related proceeding and it would be inappropriate to award the same sum in relation to this proceeding given the concession that the outcome of this proceeding must follow the outcome of this proceeding. There have been some costs incurred by reason of the need to prepare a separate Response, Court Book and submissions, however there has been saving in relation to appearances and general preparation. In the circumstances, the sum of $3,500.00 in my view reflects a fair and reasonable sum for the additional costs and disbursements incurred in relation to this proceeding. That sum will be ordered to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.

I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.