[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Migration Review Tribunal of Australia

You are here: 

1110535 [2012] MRTA  1630  (8 June 2012)

Last Updated: 25 June 2012

1110535  [2012] MRTA 1630  (8 June 2012)

DECISION RECORD

APPLICANT: Mr Sanjeev Singh

MRT CASE NUMBER: 1110535

DIAC REFERENCE(S): CLF2011/76045

TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Alison Murphy

DATE: 8 June 2012

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

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 applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa on 13 May 2011. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 19 September 2011 and notified the applicant of the decision and review rights by letter dated 19 September 2011. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 6 October 2011 for review of the delegate’s decision.
3. Since then, the Tribunal has been advised that the applicant has withdrawn the application for review.

RELEVANT LAW

4. A decision to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Act is an MRT-reviewable decision covered by s.338(2) 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, an 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

5. On 15 March 2012 the Tribunal received a request for withdrawal from the review applicant via an email from the email address that the applicant had nominated on his review application form. On 23 April 2012 the Tribunal received another email from that email address attaching a letter signed by the review applicant. In that letter, the review applicant stated that as he was going overseas permanently, he did not wish his application for review to be processed further.
6. 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

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

Alison Murphy
Member