Jamhari (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2803

Jamhari (Migration) [2022] AATA 2803 (4 July 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Lukman Hakim Jamhari

CASE NUMBER:  2205382

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/731576

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:4 July 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 04 July 2022 at 8:45am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – WE-050 Bridging Visa – subclass 600 – at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made – application was not properly made – invalid application –no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347, 411, 412, Schedule 2

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 11 April 2022 for review form was lodged with the Tribunal in which the applicant indicated they are seeking review of a decision made on 28/03/2022 to cancel a WE-050 Bridging Visa (Doc Id 9643976). It does not appear that the Department has made a decision to refuse to grant or cancel a WE-050 Bridging 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 (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. They include decisions to refuse and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. On 13 April 2022 the Tribunal forwarded to the applicant a Natural Justice (NJ) letter with a response date of 27 April 2022.f This letter explained the detail of the lack of jurisdiction. The applicant did not respond.

4. As no reviewable decision had been made at the time the review application was lodged it follows that the application 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.

   Mark Bishop
   Member