NABAVI (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the matter of *Nabavi* concerning an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister. The applicant, Mr. Nabavi, had sought a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 457 (Temporary (Skilled)), but this application was contingent on an approved nomination. The core dispute revolved around whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision, given that the nomination had not been approved and no review of that specific decision had been sought or was pending.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Nabavi's application for review. This question turned on the interpretation of the relevant migration legislation and regulations, specifically concerning the reviewability of decisions related to visa applications where a prerequisite, such as an approved nomination, had not been met. The Tribunal was required to determine if the delegate's decision, in the absence of an approved nomination, constituted a decision that could be subject to merits review by the AAT.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate's decision was not reviewable in the circumstances presented. This conclusion was based on the understanding that the legislative framework governing the subclass 457 visa requires an approved nomination as a fundamental step. Without this approval, or a review of its refusal, the subsequent visa decision was not a reviewable decision for the purposes of the AAT. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the application for review had not been properly made, and therefore, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.