Kumar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 69

Kumar (Migration) [2018] AATA 69 (10 January 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sanjay Kumar

CASE NUMBER:  1731312

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:10 January 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 January 2018 at 1:52pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Invalid application – No right to apply for review

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338(7), 347, 347(2), 347(2)(c)

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 8 December 2017, 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(7) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 12 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. On 13 December the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review does not appear to be a valid application as the person who is entitled to apply for review is the parent/spouse/de facto partner/child/brother/sister of the visa applicant who is an Australia citizen or permanent resident and whose particulars were included in the visa application.  The applicant was invited to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 27 December 2017.  The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter.

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 person referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was made by the primary visa applicant himself. 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.

   Tania Flood
   Member