Sajahan (Migration)

[2022] AATA 659

Sajahan (Migration) [2022] AATA 659 (24 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Shahkhirshah Sajahan

CASE NUMBER:  2118806

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          PNJ

MEMBER:Paul Noonan

DATE:24 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 24 March 2022 at 9:25am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) – Subclass 601 (Electronic Travel Authority) – applicant not in migration zone at time of making application for review – no substantive response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 65, 338(2), 347(2)(a), (3)

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 9 December 2021, to refuse to grant a Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s 338(2) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 10 December 2021. 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(2), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made: s 347(2)(a) and (3). ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s 5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.

4. On 24 December 2021 the Tribunal emailed the applicant and invited him to comment on the validity of his application. The applicant replied on 24 December 2021 that he is trying to obtain a tourist visa and does not understand why it has not been approved.

5. The Department’s records reflect that the applicant was in Singapore when he applied for the visa. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. 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.

   Paul Noonan
   Member