Ram (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2813

Ram (Migration) [2023] AATA 2813 (23 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Leel Ram

CASE NUMBER:  2308130

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               BCC2023/1567130

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:23 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 23 August 2023 at 12:05pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – application for review made by visa applicant, not 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 Home Affairs, dated 12 April 2023, to refuse to grant 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. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 8 June 2023. 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 1 August 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that the application for review was not a Part 5-reviewable decision under s 338(7) because that requires that particulars of the relative concerned (i.e. the Australian citizen or permanent resident the visa applicant intends to visit, who is a brother, sister, parent, spouse, de facto partner or child of the visa applicant) are included in the visa application and this did not appear to be the case.

5. No response was received.

6. 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

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

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member