Omar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning an application for review by the applicant, Omar, against a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review a specific decision, given that the applicant had nominated a different decision for review. The Tribunal, constituted by Theodore Tavoularis SM, was tasked with determining the jurisdictional question.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's application could be amended or treated as a mechanism for reviewing the correct decision, and whether the parties' consent could reconfigure the application to cure the jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's subjective intention could override the objective requirements for invoking its jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the "in writing" requirement for review applications and the principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's intention to review a different decision, even if based on a misunderstanding, could not unilaterally invoke its jurisdiction. It was noted that the ancillary documents provided to the applicant clearly indicated that review rights were predicated on the non-revocation decision, and that any review application must be made in writing to properly invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no authority to support the proposition that an application for review of one decision could be transformed into a review of a different decision, nor that it could unilaterally amend the application to cure the defect. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that jurisdiction over subject matter cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties, citing the principle established in *Ridley and Whipp*.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision nominated by the applicant. The application was dismissed pursuant to s42A(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).