1516156 (Migration)

[2015] AATA 3935

1516156 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3935 (18 December 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Mervat Mankaryous

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Kamal Fathy Farid Eskander

CASE NUMBER:  1516156

MEMBER:Louise Nicholls

DATE:18 December 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 18 December 2015 at 11:28am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant, Mervat Mankaryous, was the sponsor of her brother Kamal Eskander who obtained a sponsored visit visa which expired on 10 October 2013. The visit visa holder arrived in Australia but did not depart until 9 February 2015. He was found to have breached the condition 8531 which required him to depart Australia prior to visa expiry.

2. On 27 August 2015 the Department wrote to Ms Mankaryous and advised her that it had refused the refund of the security bond.

3. An application was made to the Tribunal on 25 November 2015 for review of the Department’s refusal to refund the security bond. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

4. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) if an application is properly made under s.347 or s.412 of that Act, or in limited circumstances not relevant to this application, s.29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal.

5. Reviewable decisions include decisions to refuse and cancel visas of various kinds, and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions. At the time the review application was lodged the decision to refuse to refund the security bond is not a decision which is reviewable by the Tribunal. Thus, no relevant decision had been made.

6. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 2 December 2015 and advised that it appeared that the application was not a valid application as a decision of the granting of a visa and the subsequent forfeiture of a security bond is not a decision which can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The applicant’s representative responded by telephone and email correspondence and advised the applicant was a Centrelink recipient and the forfeiture would have an adverse impact on her financial situation. The Tribunal has considered the response but considers it does not provide a basis for finding that the application is a valid application.

7. As there is no reviewable decision it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Louise Nicholls
   Senior Member  `  18 December 2015