1608855 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4886

1608855 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4886 (14 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1608855

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:14 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 14 July 2016 at 3:34pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Application received out of time – Federal Circuit Court dismissal

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 412, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.31

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated [May] 2016, to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate of the Department refused the visa on [date] May 2016.

3. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on [date A] June 2016.

4. Pursuant to s.412(1)(b) of the Act and r.4.31 of the Migration Regulations 1994, an application for review of this decision had to be made within 28 days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated [date] May 2016 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

6. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 30 June 2014, via email, inviting her to comment by 14 July 2016 on the validity of the application for revie,. The applicant was advised that her application and any comments she makes would be referred to a member to make a decision on her application.

7. On 8 July 2016 the Tribunal received a response, by email, from the applicant. She advised that she would like to progress the review of her case and she had just opened her mail and received the last email sent to her. She said that she would like to know the next step she has to do to make things smooth.

8. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision of the Department refusing her a visa on [date] May 2016. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on [date B] June 2016.

9. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until [date A] June 2016 it follows that the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

    Lilly Mojsin
    Member