Le Oliveira (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2071

Le Oliveira (Migration) [2018] AATA 2071 (10 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Marilene Le Oliveira

CASE NUMBER:  1812253

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/1555882

MEMBER:Nicola Findson

DATE:10 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 10 May 2018 at 11:20am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – No Tribunal-reviewable decision

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29

Migration Act 1958, ss 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 30 April 2018 for review of a purported decision made by a delegate of the Department of Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa. 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. However, the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. On 3 May 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised her that its view was that her application was not a valid application as it appears there is no decision to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa that can be reviewed. The letter stated that this is a matter which must be determined by a Member of the Tribunal.  The letter invited the applicant to make comments on whether a valid application has been made, in writing, by 17 May 2018.

4. The applicant responded to the Tribunal’s letter on 4 May 2017.  In her response, among other things, the applicant indicated that she hoped there would be a positive outcome in her matter, but understood there are “conditions and requirements” that determine whether an application is accepted for review.

5. The Tribunal has considered the response provided to it by the applicant.  However, given that no reviewable decision had been made at the time the review application was lodged it follows that the application was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Nicola Findson
   Member