You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
Migration Review Tribunal of Australia >>
2012 >>
[2012] MRTA 1248
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Download]
[Context] [No Context] [Help]
1009646 [2012] MRTA 1248 (8 May 2012)
Last Updated: 16 May 2012
1009646 [2012] MRTA 1248 (8 May 2012)
DECISION RECORD
REVIEW APPLICANT: Mr Leonard Fabian John
Stevenson
VISA APPLICANT: Ms Suqin Dong
MRT CASE NUMBER: 1009646
DIAC REFERENCE(S): 2009/079921
TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Fraser Syme
DATE: 8 May 2012
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
- This
is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister
for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant
the visa applicant a
Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa under s.65 of the Migration
Act 1958 (the Act).
- The
visa applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a
Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa
on 12 November 2009. The
delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 16 August 2010 and notified the
visa applicant of the decision
and her review rights by letter dated 16 August
2010. The review applicant applied to the Tribunal on 1 November 2010 for review
of the delegate’s decision.
- Since
then, the Tribunal has been advised that the review applicant has withdrawn the
application for review.
RELEVANT LAW
- A
decision to refuse to grant a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) (Class TO) visa
under s.65 of the Act is an MRT-reviewable decision covered by s.338(5) of the
Act . If a valid application is made under s.347 of the Act for review of an
MRT-reviewable decision, the Tribunal must review the decision unless it is a
decision in relation to
which the Minister has issued a conclusive certificate:
s.348 of the Act. However, a review applicant may withdraw an application for
review at any time before it is determined. If an applicant
for review withdraws
the application there is no longer a valid application for review before the
Tribunal. In those circumstances
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct a
review: SZASD v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 472.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
- On
3 May 2012 the Tribunal received via fax a written request signed by the review
applicant advising his withdrawal of the application
for review.
- The
Tribunal is satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the application
for review has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the
Tribunal finds that it no longer
has a valid application before it. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction
to review the delegate’s
decision.
DECISION
- The
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Fraser Syme
Member
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2012/ 1248 .html