Nguyen (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2811

Nguyen (Migration) [2023] AATA 2811 (23 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Thanh Mao Nguyen

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Huu Bang Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  2308039

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/3048365

MEMBER:Sheridan Aster

DATE:23 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 23 August 2023 at 11:11am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Subclass FA) – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – tourist stream – refusal of this subclass and stream not in range of reviewable decisions – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02(4)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 7 June 2023 for review of a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor visa (subclass 600). 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 (Cth) (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 (Cth).

3. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and reg 4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 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 but not a decision to refuse a subclass 600 visa in the tourist stream.

4. The applicant was notified that there was no right to merits review in the decision of the delegate. Further, on 23 June 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review. The letter explained that the decision was not of a type listed in s 338 of the Act and therefore not reviewable under Part 5. At the date of this decision no response had been received.

5. Part 7 reviewable decisions relate to claims for protection and are not applicable in this case.

6. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Sheridan Aster
   Member