Mekamat (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3172

Mekamat (Migration) [2023] AATA 3172 (27 September 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Nur Qalesya Corina Mekamat

CASE NUMBER:  2308646

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC20233266252

MEMBER:Justine Clarke

DATE:27 September 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 September 2023 at 2:39pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – particulars of the relative concerned not included in application – not Part 5-reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. On 16 June 2023, an application was lodged with the Tribunal for the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 16 June 2023, to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s 338(7) of the Act.

2. 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(7), an application for review may only be made by the relative referred to in the subsection concerned: s 347(2)(c).

4. On 5 September 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to invite her to comment on the validity of the review. The letter requested any comments to be made by 19 September 2023.

5. On 18 and 19 September 2023, the applicant responded in writing, relevantly stating the following.

   First and foremost, I would like to say thank you for your urgent reply regarding the visa application review dated on 5th September 2023. My visa application under subclass 600 had been submitted dated on 24 August 2023 and been refused by Australian Embassy for a certain reasons. Therefore, I would like to make some comments to the members, and really hope there is a chances and spaces for me to VISIT de factor partner for a certain period.

   2. For your information, I had submitted a relevant data and information, personal documents for your references, even my employment letter, to show and prove, how tight am I, commitment towards to the family. According to the Refusal statement received, had mentioned the possibilities, VISA been abuse is high, if been issued, therefore, I stand and mentions that I have high commitment at my own country, and will come back accordingly stated at the visa application.

   3. For your information, I have plan travel to Australia dated on1 November 2023and return back to KUALA LUMPUR on14 November 2023 after visiting my spouse de factor, [name and address omitted] for a 2 week. I don’t have any intention to stay longer than time given, because I have personal commitment at my home country. I do respect to the members of the community of embassy for whatever decision been made after this.

   4. Sir/ mdm, is’t I have to wait for the result made by the members of community or I have to re-apply back (NEW SUBMISSION) to the AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY. Actually, I am well prepared to take an action for submission.

   Last but not least, I am so thankful to the board of members for your consideration on my visa status. I am really hope, there is a chances for me to come and visit my husband soon, and your co-operation and commitment is highly appreciated.

6. The Tribunal has considered the submission.

7. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s 338(7), the application for review could only be made by the relative referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicant. 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

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

   Justine Clarke
   Member