Inman-Bamber (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2622

Inman-Bamber (Migration) [2023] AATA 2622 (25 July 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Cairen Inman-Bamber

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Rachael Mirembe Inman-Bamber

CASE NUMBER:  2307038

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/2646646

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:25 July 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 25 July 2023 at 3:01pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – visiting relatives of a specified kind – 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 22 May 2023 for review of a decision to refuse a FA-Visitor (Sublass 600) visa to the applicant. 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 (Cth) (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 (Cth). Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and reg 4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 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 is reviewable if it is made by an applicant outside the migration zone and the applicant is applying under the Tourist stream or the Sponsored Family Stream and the stated purpose is to visit a relative of a kind specified in 338(7)(b) and particulars of the relative are included in the visa application. In the application made the applicant states they wish to visit Australia to holiday with extended family (aunt, uncle and cousins of applicant). For the purposes of s. 338(7)(b) the persons specified are Australian permanent residents who are a parent, spouse, de facto partner, child, brother or sister of the non citizen. The Tribunal is satisfied the stated purpose of the visit is not to visit a relative of the kind specified in s. 338(7)(b) and for that reason the decision is not a reviewable decision.

3. 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

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

   Moira Brophy
   Member