1707202 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1827

1707202 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1827 (4 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1707202

MEMBER:Luke Hardy

DATE:4 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 October 2017 at 12:26pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Duplicate application lodged

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r.4.02

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 was made to the Tribunal [in] April 2017 for review of a protection visa refusal made by a delegate of the Minister [in] March 2017 ([File number]). A review of the delegate’s decision was conducted by the Tribunal and was finalised on 4 September 2017.

2. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) if an application is properly made under s.347 or s.412 of that Act, or in limited circumstances not relevant to this application, s.29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and r.4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal.

3. The applicant evidently lodged a duplicate application [in] April 2017 review of the same primary decision ([File number]). This may have been due to transmission error on the part of the applicant as the applications are identical in every respect.

4. The Tribunal, differently-constituted,  has already reviewed the same protection visa application ([File number]) that was cited by the applicant in both of the review applications received. In light of these facts, and specifically concerning the  [April] 2017 application, the Tribunal finds there is no reviewable decision before it.

5. As there is no reviewable decision it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Luke Hardy
   Member