Santinan (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2109

Santinan (Migration) [2019] AATA 2109 (22 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ponlawat Santinan

CASE NUMBER:  1904015

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/3756126

MEMBER:Adrienne Millbank

DATE:22 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 22 March 2019 at 2:04pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – invalid visa application – not a reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 29
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 21 February 2019 for review of a decision made by a Delegate on 18 June 2018 that an application for a Student (Subclass 500) visa was invalid. 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 (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. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 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 that a visa application is not valid.

3. On 26 February 2019 an invitation was sent by email to the applicant, inviting him to comment, in writing, by 12 March 2019, on the validity of his application. No response was received by the Tribunal.

4. 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

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

   Adrienne Millbank
   Member