Ge (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3348

Ge (Migration) [2018] AATA 3348 (13 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Nannan Ge

CASE NUMBER:  1818780

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1415015

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:13 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 13 August 2018 at 1:42pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – sponsored by an approved sponsor – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 140, 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 27 June 2018 for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) 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 (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 to grant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa is reviewable if the applicant made the visa application while in the migration zone and either the applicant is sponsored by an approved sponsor at the time the application for review of the visa refusal is made or an application for review of a decision not to approve the sponsor has been made but at the time the application for review of the visa refusal is made, review of the sponsorship decision is pending.

3. However, at the time the review application was lodged the applicant was not identified in a nomination under s.140GB of the Migration Act 1958 that was approved or pending. Nor was there a pending application for review before the Tribunal of either a decision not to approve the sponsor under s.140E, or a decision not to approve the nomination under s.140GB of the Act. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 3 July 2018 and invited comments on the validity of the application for review. The applicant responded on 3 July 2018 but merely stated the nomination refusal letter had been provided/uploaded.

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.

   C. Packer
   Member