Hayat v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, Mr. Hayat, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which dismissed his application for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas. The AAT's decision was predicated on the fact that Mr. Hayat's application was reliant on the outcome of separate proceedings, SYG 2324 of 2018, and crucially, that there was no approved nomination in accordance with the requirements of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law by dismissing Mr. Hayat's visa application on the basis that the prerequisite of an approved nomination had not been met. This required the court to consider the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Regulations 1994* concerning the nomination requirements for Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas.

Judge Street found that the AAT had correctly applied the law. The court reasoned that the Migration Regulations clearly stipulated that an approved nomination was a mandatory criterion for the grant of a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. As there was no evidence before the AAT that such a nomination had been approved, the Tribunal was correct in concluding that Mr. Hayat's application could not succeed. The court affirmed that the AAT was not empowered to grant a visa where a mandatory criterion had not been satisfied.