1713235 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1194

1713235 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1194 (27 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1713235

MEMBER:Peter Vlahos

DATE:27July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 July 2017 at 7:06am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Non-reviewable decision – Repeat application – First application has already been reviewed – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29

Migration Act 1958, ss 338,347, 411, 412

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02(4)

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 on 21 June 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

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. They include decisions to refuse or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made

3. In this case on 3 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review as submitted was for a decision had already been reviewed by the Tribunal and therefore was invalid. The Tribunal in its letter to the applicant[1] noted that the applicant had first lodged an application for review of the Department’s decision to refuse his Protection visa [in] April 2017 and the Tribunal made a decision on 29 May 2017 that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant lodged another application for review of the same decision on 27 April 2017 which was determined by the Tribunal on a similar basis. On 21 June 2017 a further application for review was lodged with the Tribunal.

   [1] AAT File no. 1713235, folio 5

4. In the Tribunal’s letter (dated 3 July 2017), the applicant was requested to provide the Tribunal in writing his reasons as to why the Tribunal should consider his third application for review and given until the 17 July 2017 to provide the Tribunal with reasons.

5. No response was received.

6. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Peter Vlahos
   Member