Le (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2301

Le (Migration) [2020] AATA 2301 (24 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Van Nhan Le
Mrs Quynh Nhu Trinh

CASE NUMBER:  1925573

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1049827

MEMBER:Scott Clarey

DATE:24 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 24 March 2020 at 1:08pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 131, 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 11 September 2019 for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 4 September 2019, of revocation of cancellation of a Visitor (Class FA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 11 September 2019. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

2. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) if an application is properly made under s.347 or s.412 of that Act, or in limited circumstances not relevant to this application, s.29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal. They include decisions to refuse or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions but not a decision that was made under s.131 of the Act.

3. On 14 January 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to inform him that it was of the view that his application appeared to be invalid and invited him to comment on the validity of his application in writing by 28 January 2020. The Tribunal did not receive a response.

4. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Scott Clarey
   Member