AGARWAL (Migration)

[2018] AATA 65

AGARWAL (Migration) [2018] AATA 65 (8 January 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr VIKAS AGARWAL
Mrs APRAJITA MOUR

CASE NUMBER:  1728084

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  N17/01264755 PNJ

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:8 January 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 8 January 2018 at 11:52am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Invalid application – Fees unpaid – Incorrect applicant for review

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65, 338(5), 347(2), 347(2)(b)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 10 November 2017, to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(5) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 13 November 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Section 347(2) of the Act specifies who has the right to apply for review of a decision that is reviewable under Part 5 of the Act. In the case of a decision described in s.338(5), an application for review may only be made by the sponsor or nominator referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(b).

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicants in the letter dated 28 November 2017. The letter explained who is entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a review of a decision to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas. It indicated that the applicants were not entitled to apply. Further, the letter indicated that the application was not valid as the application fee had not been paid. The applicants were provided with an opportunity to provide any comments on whether a valid application had been made in writing by 12 December 2017. No response was received.

5. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(5), the application for review could only be made by a relevant person referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicants. As such, the application for review is not an application properly made under s.347 and it follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Linda Holub
   Member