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

You are here: 

1202558 [2012] MRTA  2304  (9 August 2012)

Last Updated: 29 August 2012

1202558  [2012] MRTA 2304  (9 August 2012)

DECISION RECORD

APPLICANTS: Mrs Amandeep Kaur -
Mr Jatinder Singh
Master Harsehbaz Singh
Miss Wahenoor Kahlon

MRT CASE NUMBER: 1202558

DIAC REFERENCE(S): BCC2010/552567

TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Brook Hely

DATE: 9 August 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 decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicants Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas on 10 December 2010. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visas on 10 February 2012 and notified the applicants of the decision and review rights by letter dated 10 February 2012. The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 25 February 2012 for review of the delegate’s decision.
3. Since then, the Tribunal has been advised that the applicants have withdrawn the application for review.

RELEVANT LAW

4. A decision to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC)s visa under s.65 of the Act is an MRT-reviewable decision covered by s.338(2). 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 10 December 2010, the visa applicants lodged with the Department the application under review.
6. On 10 February 2012, a delegate of the Minister refused the application because there was no evidence that the primary visa applicant (‘the visa applicant’) had ‘competent English’ and the applicant therefore did not meet the requirements of cl.485.215. The delegate also found that no valid application had been made under subclass 487.
7. On 25 February 2012, the visa applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
8. The visa applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 July 2012 to give evidence and present arguments. The visa applicant confirmed that she did not possess evidence of competent English. However, she explained that she had since been sponsored by her current employer for a visa under a different visa stream. She was expecting to receive a positive decision on that application in the coming days, in which case she intended to withdraw the present application.
9. On 8 August 2012, the Tribunal received a completed Withdrawal of Application for Review form signed by the visa applicant. The visa applicant also indicated on that form that she wished to withdraw the application on behalf of her other family members who were also parties to this review application.
10. 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

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

Brook Hely
Member