1901927 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for review concerning a decision to refuse a visitor (tourist) visa for Ms A and her spouse, Mr B. The review applicant, who sponsored Ms A and Mr B, lodged an application for review following the refusal of the visitor visas. Subsequently, a further application for review was lodged concerning the refusal of sponsored family stream visas for Ms A and Mr B. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to conduct the hearing by telephone, in accordance with the Covid-19 Practice Direction for the Migration and Refugee Division, deeming it reasonable and conducive to a fair, just, economical, and quick review process.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applications for review were validly made and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review both the visitor visa refusal decisions and the sponsored family stream visa refusal decisions. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the second application for review, lodged in relation to the sponsored family stream visas, was within the prescribed period and if the payment of a single application fee was sufficient for reviewing multiple visa refusals for members of the same family unit.

The Tribunal reasoned that the review applicant intended to lodge reviews for both the visitor visas and the sponsored family stream visas. It found that the second application for review was lodged within the prescribed period, as per regulation 347(1)(b)(ii). Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that under Regulation 4.12, the review applicant was permitted to combine her applications for review because she sponsored two members of the same family unit for separate sponsored family visas that were refused. Consequently, both the visitor visa refusal decisions and the sponsored family stream visa refusal decisions were considered reviewable under section 338(5) of the relevant legislation. The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.