Singh (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6243

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 6243 (18 October 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Balkar Singh
Mrs Lalita
Master Arjun Sungroya

CASE NUMBER:  1913379

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/1511437

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:18 October 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 18 October 2019 at 3:07pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa – Subclass 186 (Employer Nomination Scheme) – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – applicant mistook Departmental letter for refusal – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 28 May 2019 for review of the decision to refuse to grant an Employer Nomination (Subclass 186) 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 his submission to the Tribunal the review applicant explained that he received a letter from the Department and mistakenly thought that his application was refused.

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.

   DECISION

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

   Kira Raif
   Senior Member