Njoroge (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1305

Njoroge (Migration) [2021] AATA 1305 (22 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Nicholas Ngoro Njoroge

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Wanjiku Njoroge Catherine

CASE NUMBER:  1930743

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/4685944

MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay

DATE:22 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 February 2021 at 12:19pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – application was not made by the relative – application was not properly made under s.347 – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 338(5), 347(2)

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 29 October 2019, 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(5) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 October 2019. 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(5), an application for review may only be made by the sponsor or nominator referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(b).

4. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(5), the application for review could only be made by the relative referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was not made by the relative referred to in that subsection. 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

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

   Joseph Lindsay
   Member