Arif (Migration)

[2024] AATA 2108

Arif (Migration) [2024] AATA 2108 (12 June 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Sohail Arif

CASE NUMBER:  2408412

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          PNJ

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:12 June 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 June 2024 at 10:49am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary)(class TU) Student – applicant made the visa application while outside the migration zone – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 412, Schedule 2

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 16 April 2024 for review of a decision dated 16 April 2024 to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary)(class TU) Student (subclass 500) 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 and the circumstances in which they are reviewable. A decision to refuse to grant a subclass 500 Student visa is reviewable if the applicant made the visa application while in the migration zone, and decision was not made while the applicant was in immigration clearance or had been refused immigration clearance and had not subsequently been immigration cleared: s 338(2).

3. It is not reviewable in the circumstances of this case because the applicant made the visa application while outside the migration zone.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 17 April 2024, inviting his comment on the validity of the application for review. There was no response.

5. The Tribunal notes that the delegate’s notification of the visa application refusal stated that there is no merits review of the decision. This is the second of three attempted lodgements of an application for review in respect of that decision.

6. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable in these circumstances 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.

   James Silva
   Member