Chanprapas (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1936

Chanprapas (Migration) [2017] AATA 1936 (27 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Miss Pariyachat Chanprapas
Miss Nutthamas Rattanaamornpirom

CASE NUMBER:  1720531

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1223494

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:27 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 September 2017 at 2:06pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Applicant out of migration zone at time of review application

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347, 411, 412

Migration Regulation 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.215, r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 4 September 2017 for review of a decision to refuse a student visa application because the applicant failed to provide evidence of adequate arrangements for health insurance and therefore did not satisfy cl.500.215, however 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 (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. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 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 a student visa is reviewable if the applicant made the review application while in the migration zone.

3. The decision in question is not reviewable in the circumstances of this case because the applicant made review application on 4 September 2017 while outside the migration zone.

4. 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

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

   Tim Connellan
   Member