Binti Hussin (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3728

Binti Hussin (Migration) [2024] AATA 3728 (1 October 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Suzi Binti Hussin

CASE NUMBER:  2423346

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               BCC2024/ 3553059

MEMBER:Suseela Durvasula

DATE:1 October 2024 

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 01 October 2024 at 12:25pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) visa – Subclass 601 (Electronic Travel Authority) – visa application made while applicant outside migration zone – not a reviewable decision – unable to consider merits of application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02(4)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 17 July 2024 for review of an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) Class UD 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. They include decisions to refuse or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but not a decision to refuse an ETA visa.

3. Decisions to refuse to grant an ETA are not reviewable by the Tribunal because they are applied for while the applicant is outside the migration zone or in immigration clearance, and do not include a criterion for a relevant sponsorship or visiting a relative.

4. On 2 August 2024, the Tribunal sent a natural justice letter to the applicant on the issue of whether the decision could be reviewed. The applicant responded to this letter on 15 August 2024 setting out why they disputed the merits of the decision made by the delegate and why they should be granted the visa.

5. 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. The Tribunal is unable to consider the merits of this application or the reasons addressing the refusal put forward by the applicant.

   DECISION

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

   Suseela Durvasula
   Member