1715864 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1981

1715864 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1981 (13 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1715864

MEMBER:Luke Hardy

DATE:13 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 October 2017 at 10:12am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Review application previously decided – No longer a reviewable decision

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, 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] 2017 for review of a protection visa decision made by the Minister’s delegate [in] March 2017 ([File number]).

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

3. 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 visas of various kinds, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that in this instance merits review of the applicant’s protection visa application has already been conducted and finalised by this Tribunal on 23 June 2017 (MRD number 1704338).

4. Decisions by the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal and further review of the delegate’s decision by this Tribunal is not possible under law.

5. There is no reviewable decision in this application, which in view of its timing may or may not be a vexatious attempt to roll over the applicant’s bridging visa rights.

6. 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

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

   Luke Hardy
   Member