1719719 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1977

1719719 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1977 (11 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1719719

MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay

DATE:11 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 October 2017 at 9:41am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Personal identifiers not provided – No grounds for review

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 46, 338, 347, 411, 412

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 28 August 2017 for review of a decision by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection dated [in] July 2017 that the applicant’s application for a Protection (subclass 866) visa was invalid. 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. However, the Tribunal can only consider such decisions if a visa application is valid in the first instance. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant did not provide personal identifiers in relation to the visa application to the Department. Accordingly, as the applicant had not provided his personal identifiers, and the Minister has not waived the operation of s.46(2A) in relation to this application, the applicant’s visa application did not comply with the criteria at s.46(2A) of the Act and was therefore not a valid visa application.

3. The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it, that the protection visa application was not a valid application and therefore it is not a reviewable decision under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act.

4. 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

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

   Joseph Lindsay
   Member