1500857 (Migration)

This matter concerned a review application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training visa. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision, but her husband, who was initially included in the visa application, was not included in the review application. The AAT had previously notified the applicant of its preliminary view that it lacked jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision as it related to her husband, as he had not been included in the review application.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision in relation to the applicant's husband, given his omission from the review application. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 572 visa, specifically whether she was a "genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student" under cl.572.223(2)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether she met the applicable evidentiary requirements in Schedule 5A.

The Tribunal reasoned that it could not bestow jurisdiction upon itself and that, as a matter of fact, the applicant's husband was explicitly not included in the review application, as confirmed by the electronic form and the applicant's response to the Tribunal's invitation. Therefore, the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction in respect of the applicant's husband. However, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant met the criteria under cl.572.223(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, indicating that the remaining criteria for the visa were to be considered by the Minister.