Ahmed (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1949

Ahmed (Migration) [2018] AATA 1949 (2 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Hafeez Ahmed

VISA APPLICANT:  Master Abid Razi

CASE NUMBER:  1808021

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLD2018/17720489

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:2 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 02 May 2018 at 2:08pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Incorrect applicant – Members of the family unit

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347

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 7 March 2018, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa 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 23 March 2018. 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. On 23 April 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review appears not to be a valid application as the person who is entitled to apply for review is the parent/spouse/de factor partner/child/brother/sister of the visa applicant who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident and whose particulars were included in the visa application.  The applicant was invited to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 7 April 2018.  This date was subsequently determined to be incorrect and on 30 April 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again advising the above and inviting him to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 14 May 2018.

5. In a response to the Tribunal dated 30 April 2008 the applicant’s authorised recipient (the applicant’s daughter) informed the Tribunal that her father passed away on 28 April 2018.  She requested that her son (the visa applicant) be granted a visa to attend his grandfather’s funeral.

6. 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 the relative referred to in that subsection. On the available evidence the visa applicant is the adopted son of the review applicant’s daughter. Therefore, the review applicant is the grandfather (adopted) of the visa applicant. As the review applicant is not the parent/spouse/de facto partner/child/brother/sister of the visa applicant, 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.

7. The Tribunal notes and sympathises with the fact the review applicant recently passed away however for the reasons outlined above this has no bearing on the outcome of the application for review.

   DECISION

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

   Tania Flood
   Member