AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Migration Review Tribunal of Australia

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

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. Since then, the Tribunal has been advised that the review applicant has withdrawn the application for review.

RELEVANT LAW

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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