Smith (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4077

Smith (Migration) [2022] AATA 4077 (21 November 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Stephen Smith

CASE NUMBER:  2211876

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          PNJ

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:21 November 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 21 November 2022 at 10:53am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class TV) visa – Subclass 651 (eVisitor) – visa subclass not in range of reviewable decisions – application not properly made – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.02(4)

statement of decision and reasons

application for review

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 11 August 2022 for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Visitor (subclass 651 eVisitor) 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 (Cth) (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 (Cth). Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and reg 4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 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, as noted in the Department notification letter of 11 August 2022, not a decision to refuse to grant an eVisitor (subclass 651) visa.

3. The Tribunal wrote to the review applicant on 1 September 2022, inviting comments on the validity of the application for review. On 2 September 2022, the review applicant acknowledged that he had lodged an ‘incorrect tribunal application’.

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.

   James Silva
   Member