Zou (Migration) [2017] AATA 1712 (1 August 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: Ms Tianyu Zou
CASE NUMBER: 1714056
DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2017/561052
MEMBER:Rania Skaros
DATE:1 August 2017
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Statement made on 01 August 2017 at 11:32am
CATCHWORDS
Migration – Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 186 Employer Nomination Scheme – Applicant not in migration zone
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 65, 338, 347
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 30 June 2017, to refuse to grant a Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.338(2) of the Act.
The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 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.
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(2), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made: s.347(2)(a) and (3). ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.
Information before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was not in Australia at the time of the application for review. On this basis, the Tribunal formed the preliminary view that the application was not validly made. On 3 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review. The response was due on 17 July 2017 however to date no response has been received by the Tribunal.
As the Department’s movement records show that the applicant was not in Australia at the time of review application, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. 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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Rania Skaros
Member
- AGLC
- Zou (Migration) [2017] AATA 1712
- Case
- [2017] AATA 1712
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear Ms. Zou's application for review. This jurisdiction was contingent upon Ms. Zou having made a "properly made" application under section 347 of the relevant migration legislation, which in turn required her to be within the migration zone at the time of lodging the review application.
The Tribunal determined that the Department's movement records indicated Ms. Zou was not in Australia when she applied for review. Consequently, the Tribunal found that she was not in the migration zone at the relevant time. As a result, her application for review was not considered a properly made application under section 347, and the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The Tribunal therefore made no order on the merits of the visa application itself, as the jurisdictional issue was determinative.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.