Juggeea (Migration)

[2024] AATA 364

Juggeea (Migration) [2024] AATA 364 (27 February 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Basantee Juggeea

CASE NUMBER:  2321258

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/6719278 PNJ

MEMBER:Peter Papadopoulos

DATE:27 February 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 27 February 2024 at 10:49am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – not in Australia when application for review made – plan to travel to assist daughter in studies – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 338(2), 347(3)

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 Home Affairs, dated 28 December 2023, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s 338(2) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 December 2023. 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(3) of the Act specifies an application for review of decision covered by s 338(2) of the Act may only be made by a non-citizen who is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made.

4. On 11 January 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant explaining that as she was not in Australia at the time the review application was lodged, the review application had not been validly made: s 347(3). The review applicant was invited to comment in writing by 25 January 2024 on whether a valid review application had been made.

5. The applicant responded by stating she was unaware that she had to be in Australia at the time she made her application for review, and that she planned to travel to Australia in February 2024 to assist her daughter in her studies. The applicant sought guidance regarding a new visa application, to which the Tribunal directed the applicant towards the Department for any further enquiries.

6. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s 338(2), the applicant needed to be physically present in the migration zone at the time the review application was made.  As the applicant was not in migration zone at the relevant time,  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

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

   Peter Papadopoulos
   Member