Wu (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3425

Wu (Migration) [2018] AATA 3425 (22 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Bei Wu

CASE NUMBER:  1818560

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:22 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 August 2018 at 4:06pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa – Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent) – incorrect applicant – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 65, 338, 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 8 June 2018, to refuse to grant a Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(7A) of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 25 June 2018. 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(7A), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and who is physically present in the migration zone when both the primary decision and the application for review are made: s.347(2)(a) and (3A). ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.

4. As the decision that is the subject of the review application is a decision covered by s.338(7A), the application for review could only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision. In the present case, the review application was made by the visa applicant. It is the sponsor who has the review rights in this matter. 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

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

   Moira Brophy
   Member