Harvinder Pal (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2306

Harvinder Pal (Migration) [2020] AATA 2306 (23 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Harvinder Pal
Mrs Shalini

CASE NUMBER:  1933105

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ

MEMBER:L. Symons

DATE:23 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 23 March 2020 at 6:31pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 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 21 November 2019 for review of a Visitor (Class FA) Visitor (Tourist) (subclass 600) 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. They include decisions to refuse or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions but not a decision to refuse to grant a Visitor visa where the applicants were outside the migration zone at the time of application, applied under the Tourist stream or the Sponsored Family stream and were not sponsored in accordance with s.338(5)(b) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal wrote to the applicants on 26 November 2019 seeking their comments on the validity of their application for review in writing by 10 December 2019. This letter was sent to them by email on 26 November 2019. The Tribunal did not receive any notification that it had not been delivered. The Tribunal did not receive a response.

4. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act 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.

   L. Symons
   Member