Wilson (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1779

Wilson (Migration) [2017] AATA 1779 (21 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Martin Wilson

CASE NUMBER:  1712316

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3103876

MEMBER:Ian Garnham

DATE:21 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 21 July 2017 at 5:12pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – No standing for Visa Applicant – Review application not made by the sponsor or nominator

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338(5), 347

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 19 May 2017, to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(5) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 9 June 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Section 347(2) of the Act specifies who has the right to apply for review of a decision that is reviewable under Part 5 of the Act. In the case of a decision described in s.338(5), an application for review may only be made by the sponsor or nominator referred to in the subsection concerned: s.347(2)(b).

4. In this case the person who has the right to apply for review is the sponsor of the visa applicant.  Numerous attempts were made by the Tribunal to get the application amended such that the sponsor applied for review of the decision.  All of these attempts were unsuccessful.

5. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(5), the application for review could only be made by the sponsor referred to in that subsection. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicant. As such, the application for review is not an application properly made under s.347 and it follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Ian Garnham
   Member