1919178 (Migration)

[2019] AATA 4151

1919178 (Migration) [2019] AATA 4151 (26 September 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1919178

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:26 September 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 26 September 2019 at 11:45am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – refusal – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – failure to provide details or evidence – no response to Tribunal communication – no jurisdiction

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 15 July 2019 for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa.   For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

2. 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.

3. On 21 August 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant in the interests of natural justice, to advise that she had attempted to seek review in relation to a refused Bridging visa, however, she had failed to provide details or evidence to substantiate that such a decision regarding the aforementioned visa had occurred.  The applicant was advised that it appeared, therefore, that the application was invalid.

4. The Tribunal also invited the applicant to make any comments on whether a valid visa application had been made by her but she has not availed herself of the opportunity to do so.

5. 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

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

   Rosa Gagliardi
   Member