du Plessis (Migration)

[2018] AATA 824

du Plessis (Migration) [2018] AATA 824 (28 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Frederik Antonie du Plessis

CASE NUMBER:  1804654

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/4374403

MEMBER:Ian Garnham

DATE:28 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 28 March 2018 at 4:43pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) –  Incorrect applicant for review – Not a relative – No jurisdiction

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 2 February 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(7) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 February 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(7), an application for review may only be made by the relative referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(c).

4. In this case the application identified the visa applicants as the persons applying for review.  After tribunal staff held discussions with the intending sponsor and daughter of the visa applicants, she decided that the application should be reviewed in its current form.

5. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(7), the application for review could only be made by a relative referred to in that subsection.

6. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicants themselves. 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

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

   Ian Garnham
   Member