Torne (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1097

Torne (Migration) [2020] AATA 1097 (7 April 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Michelle Publico Torne
Mr Wennard Guillero Torne
Miss Yescee Riele Torne
Mr Yran Kent Torne
Mr Ralph Yuan Torne
Miss Yulia Faith Torne

CASE NUMBER:  1906573

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/981277

MEMBER:Alison Mercer

DATE:7 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application for review in respect of the first, second and sixth named applicants.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the refusal decisions relating to the third, fourth and fifth named applicants.

Statement made on 07 April 2020 at 2:21pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – non-appearance before the Tribunal – application dismissed – decision under review affirmed – not present in migration zone at time of lodgement – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 347, 362B, 362C

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 7 March 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicants  Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) Subclass 187 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 20 March 2020, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicants did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.  The Tribunal identified that the third, fourth and fifth named applicants were not present in the migration zone (Australia) on the date that the review application was lodged (20 March 2019) and thus it had no jurisdiction to review the refusal decisions in respect of them, as per s.347(3) of the Act.

3. On 23 March 2020, the review applicants were notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.362C(5). They were also advised of the Tribunal’s view that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the third, fourth and fifth named applicants for the reasons set out above.  The review applicants were advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision. They were also advised that they could provide comments on the issue of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the third, fourth and fifth named applicants by the same date.

4. The review applicants did not apply for reinstatement of the application within the 14 day period, nor did they provide any response in relation to the jurisdictional issue identified by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application in relation to the first, second and sixth named applicants. In these circumstances, the decisions under review in respect of them are taken to be affirmed.

5. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the refusal decisions relating to the third, fourth and fifth named applicants.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application for review in respect of the first, second and sixth named applicants.

7. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the refusal decisions relating to the third, fourth and fifth named applicants.

   Alison Mercer
   Member