Nargis (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3180

Nargis (Migration) [2020] AATA 3180 (3 August 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Nargis .

CASE NUMBER:  2002517

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  Bcc2019/977588 PNJ

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:3 August 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 3 August 2020 at 2.03pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – application for review can only be made by specified relative – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 338(7), 347(2)(c)

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 4 February 2020, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(7) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 10 February 2020. 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. The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter setting this information out and inviting comment. No response was received.

5. 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

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

   Sean Baker
   Member