Simard (Migration)

[2018] AATA 820

Simard (Migration) [2018] AATA 820 (12 February 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Frederic Simard

CASE NUMBER:  1802497

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  

MEMBER:R. Skaros

DATE:12 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 February 2018 at 1:08pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review relevant decisions – No relevant decision to review

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 411, 412

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02(4)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 31 January 2018 for review of a purported decision relating to an application for an employer nomination visa. 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 and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. In response to the Tribunal’s invitation to provide comments on the validity of the application for review, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he had lodged another application for review after receiving the refusal of the visa application from the Department and requesting for this application for review to be withdrawn.

4. As no reviewable decision had been made at the time the review application was lodged it follows that the application was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

5. As the Tribunal has found that the application was not properly made in the circumstances there is no application for review to be withdrawn.

   DECISION

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

   R. Skaros
   Member