Lam (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa. The applicant, who had departed Australia in August 2015 and had not returned, sought review of the Department's refusal decision. The review was heard by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's review application. This turned on whether the applicant was within the migration zone at the time the Department made its decision to refuse the visa, and at the time the applicant lodged their review application.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's difficulties with travel to Australia due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the information provided in response to a natural justice letter. However, the Tribunal found that the Department's movement records clearly indicated the applicant had departed Australia on 31 August 2015 and had not returned. Consequently, the applicant was not in the migration zone when the Department refused the visa on 20 April 2020, nor when the applicant lodged their review application on 9 May 2020. The Tribunal concluded that, as the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant times, the application for review was not properly made under section 347 of the relevant legislation, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.