Abdan (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1124

Abdan (Migration) [2023] AATA 1124 (26 April 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Aliza Abdan

CASE NUMBER:  2301536

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/547945 PNJ

MEMBER:Alan McMurran

DATE:26 April 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 26 April 2023 at 5:46pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) visa – Subclass 601 (Tourist) – non-reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 7 February 2023 for review of a decision to refuse an Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) Subclass 601 (Tourist) 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 (Cth) (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 (Cth).

3. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and reg 4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal. They include decisions to refuse or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but not a decision to refuse an Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) Subclass 601 (Tourist) visa. This subclass of visa is not listed as reviewable.

4. On 17 February 2023, the Tribunal sent a natural justice letter to the applicant, informing the applicant that subject to a Tribunal decision, it appeared that the application was not valid, and the Department’s refusal decision is not a decision which can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The letter requested a response in writing by 3 March 2023.

5. The applicant did not respond. The Tribunal has had regard to the available information and finds that the applicant has not made a valid application for review.

6. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Alan McMurran
   Member