Kaur (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2132

Kaur (Migration) [2018] AATA 2132 (24 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Kanwaljit Kaur

CASE NUMBER:  1810357

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/3505861 PNJ

MEMBER:Stephen Witts

DATE:24 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 24 May 2018 at 8:25am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Applicant outside the migration zone

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 10 April 2018, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) 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 12 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 that the applicant was outside the migration zone on 12 April 2018 when the application was made. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. 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.

   Stephen Witts
   Member