Abdul Qadir (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3170

Abdul Qadir (Migration) [2023] AATA 3170 (14 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Yousuf Abdul Qadir

CASE NUMBER:  2306927

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023727837

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:14 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 August 2023 at 11:22am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – particulars of the relative concerned not included in application – not Part 5-reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 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 19 May 2023 for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) 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). 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.

3. A requirement for the grant of the visa in question is that the applicant intends to visit an Australian citizen, or an Australian permanent resident, who is a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister of the applicant. Pursuant to s.338(7) and the particulars of the relative concerned must be included in the application. The section indicates that this is a requirement of the matter being a reviewable decision by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant indicating that in accordance with the above the application for review did not appear to be a valid application. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond but did not do so.

5. The Tribunal determines that the required information in relation to the relative(s) visited has not been included and that there is therefore no reviewable decision.

6. 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

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

   David McCulloch
   Member