LIZA (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1948

LIZA (Migration) [2018] AATA 1948 (1 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Qumrun Nahar LIZA

CASE NUMBER:  1807777

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC 2018/878169

MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen

DATE:1 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 01 May 2018 at 4:01pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Applicant not in the migration zone at time of application

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 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 16 March 2018, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) 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 22 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 at the time the visa application was lodged on 23 February 2018 the applicant was not in Australia. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 11 April 2016 outlining this concern and giving him until 26 April 2018 to respond. He responded on 18 April 2018 and requested that if that is the rules that the Tribunal refund his money.

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.

   Gabrielle Cullen
   Member