2011813 (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4679

2011813 (Migration) [2020] AATA 4679 (7 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2011813

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:7 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 07 September 2020 at 12:38pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging A (Class WA) visa – Subclass 010 (Bridging A) – no reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02

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 19 July 2020 for review of decision to cancel your Subclass 010 (Bridging A) 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. They include decisions to refuse and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. On 28 July 2020, the Tribunal wrote the following letter to the applicant:

   I am of the view that your application is not a valid application as it appears as though there is no decision to cancel a Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa that can be reviewed.

4. The Tribunal invited the applicant’s submissions on the question of its jurisdiction. The applicant did not provide the response.

5. As no reviewable decision had been made at the time the review application was lodged it follows that the application 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.

   Antonio Dronjic
   Member