GILL (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review concerning a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802. The dispute arose because the application for review was lodged by the visa sponsor, rather than the non-citizen who was the subject of the original decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application for review. This turned on the proper interpretation of section 338(2) and section 347 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which govern who may make an application for review of certain migration decisions.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 338(2) specifies that only the non-citizen who is the subject of a particular class of decisions can apply for a review. As the review application in this instance was made by the sponsor, it did not meet the requirements of section 347, which outlines the procedure for making such applications. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter.

The Tribunal ordered that it does not have jurisdiction in this matter.