LIU (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1129

LIU (Migration) [2018] AATA 1129 (20 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr YANG LIU

CASE NUMBER:  1808353

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/67847

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:20 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 20 April 2018 at 11:55am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – Invalid application – Applicant outside of the migration zone

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 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 8 March 2018, to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(2) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 27 March 2018. 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(2), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made: s.347(2)(a) and (3). ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.

4. The Department’s movement records show that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the time the application for review was lodged. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant seeking his comments on its preliminary view that it does not have jurisdiction because the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. He did not respond.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. 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.

   Denise Connolly
   Member