FIRM FOUNDATION MINISTRIES INC. (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1299

FIRM FOUNDATION MINISTRIES INC. (Migration) [2017] AATA 1299 (25 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  FIRM FOUNDATION MINISTRIES INC.

VISA APPLICANTS:  Ms MARY CHRISTABELLE ANTHONY
Mr GEORGE AH KIM LAMVOHEE

CASE NUMBER:  1713973

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/473594 CLF2017/48370

MEMBER:Karen Synon

DATE:25 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 25 July 2017 at 1:25pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa – Subclass 408 – Invalid application – Review application required by visa applicant – Review application lodged by sponsor

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 65, 338(2), 347(2)

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 28 June 2017, to refuse to grant Temporary Activity (Class GG) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(2) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 June 2017.  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(2), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made: s.347(2)(a) and (3). ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.

4. The Tribunal formed the preliminary view that it did not have jurisdiction because the person who is entitled to apply for review of the primary decision is the visa applicant who was onshore at both the time of the department decision and the Tribunal application.  Firm Foundation Ministries Inc applied for review.  Therefore the application did not appear to be a valid application.  It wrote to Firm Foundation Ministries Inc on 5 July 2017 explaining this and invited comments in writing on whether a valid application had been made by 19 July 2017.  No response or comments have been received.

5. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(2), the application for review could only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision. In the present case, the review application was made by the sponsor/nominator. 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

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

   Karen Synon
   Member