Karunarathna (Migration)

[2018] AATA 823

Karunarathna (Migration) [2018] AATA 823 (16 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Pradana Mudiyanselagne Noel Nishan Karunarathna

VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Piumi Theekshana Liyanage

CASE NUMBER:  1804094

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ

MEMBER:Ian Garnham

DATE:16 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 March 2018 at 4:41pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Application for review made by ineligible party

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338(5), 347(2)

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 12 February 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(5) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 16 February 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(5), an application for review may only be made by the sponsor or nominator referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(b).

4. On 23 February 2018 the tribunal wrote to the review applicant and advised him that the application was not valid because he is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident.  The letter also invited the review applicant to provide comments about the validity of his application.

5. On the same day the review applicant phoned the tribunal and discussed this matter with the tribunal.

6. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(5), the application for review could only be made by the sponsor referred to in that subsection.

7. In the present case, the review application was made by the brother in law of the visa applicant.  In addition the review applicant is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident. 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

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

   Ian Garnham
   Member