Khoudair (Migration)

[2018] AATA 208

Khoudair (Migration) [2018] AATA 208 (29 January 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Abdelrahman Khoudair
Miss Fawzia Ellabban

CASE NUMBER:  1731930

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/3408154 PNJ

MEMBER:Margie Bourke

DATE:29 January 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 29 January 2018 at 10:38am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 – Review application made by the visa applicants – Invalid application

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 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 October 2017, to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(7) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the tribunal on 18 December 2017. 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(7), an application for review may only be made by the relative referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(c).

4. The application for review was lodged by the two visa applicants. The tribunal wrote to the two applicants by email dated 22 December 2017 to their nominated email address, inviting them to comment on the validity of their application, as the application for review had not been made by a person who is a relative of the visa applicant who is also an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident, and whose details were included in the visa application.  The tribunal received a response from first named applicant via email the same day, advising he understood that he now understood he did not have the right to apply for the review, and enquiring about the refund of the application fee.

5. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(7), the application for review could only be made by the relative referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicants themselves. The persons who applied for the review are neither Australian citizens or permanent residents, nor are they relatives of the visa applicants. 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

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

   Margie Bourke
   Member