Joshi (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2722

Joshi (Migration) [2017] AATA 2722 (15 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Bishesh Prakash Joshi

CASE NUMBER:  1724203

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  

MEMBER:Wan Shum

DATE:15 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 15 November 2017 at 2:47pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visa expired – No reviewable decision

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s29
Migration Act 1958 ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994 r 4.02(4)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 6 October 2017 for review of a visa expiring. 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 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. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled. The applicant confirmed in response to the Tribunal’s natural justice letter that he had not had a visa cancelled or refused, but that his visa had expired. He referred to having missed the 28 day period for renewing his visa and that he had not been able to renew his visa as “the system automatically blocked me from any visa extension”. 

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.

   Wan Shum
   Member