JAAFAR (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3336

JAAFAR (Migration) [2018] AATA 3336 (31 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Faisal Azrin JAAFAR

CASE NUMBER:  1811521

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2018/177206

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:31 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 31 July 2018 at 10:51am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – incorrect applicant – applicable fee not paid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

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

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 20 April 2018, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa 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 20 April 2018. 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 Department’s movement records show the applicant departed Australia on 12 February 2018, he was therefore absent from the migration zone both at the time of the original decision and at the time the application for review was made. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. The Tribunal was also mindful that the application fee had not been paid. 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

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

   Moira Brophy
   Member