1721350 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 1464

1721350 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1464 (18 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1721350

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:18 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 18 April 2018 at 12:28pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Notified in accordance with statutory requirements – No Jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.31(2)

CASES
DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387

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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 27 June 2017 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 11 September 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. As the applicant was not in immigration detention on the day the applicant was notified of the decision, an application for review of the decision had to be made within 28 days, commencing on that day: r.4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

3. On 13 September 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant in the interests of natural justice to advise that it appeared that his application was not a valid one as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit.  The applicant was advised that the period in which an application for review of a Part 7 –reviewable decision must be given to the Tribunal is 28 days, commencing on the day the applicant is notified of the decision.  In DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387, the Federal Circuit Court held that the prescribed period in r4.31 commences on, and includes, the day the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision: at [44]-[46].

4. As the primary decision was emailed to the applicant on 27 June 2017, this was the date on which he was taken to have been notified.  In accordance with DZAFH, the last day for lodging the application for review was 24 July 2017.  As the application was not received until 11 September 2017, it appeared to be out of time.

5. The applicant was also advised that the Tribunal had previously reviewed the same decision to refuse the grant of a Protection visa.  The Tribunal made this decision on 21 August 2017.  Such a decision cannot be reviewed more than once.

6. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on the validity of his application but the applicant has elected not to respond.

7. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 27 June 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements. 

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on

   
   

   27 June 2017.  Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 24 July 2017.

9. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 11 September 2017 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

10. The Tribunal also notifies the applicant that if it receives any further documentation that appears to seek review of the same delegate’s decision, it will not treat it as a new application for review. It will not allocate a new case number, or ask the applicant to comment on the validity of any purported review application, or make a further decision about whether it has jurisdiction to review that decision. The Tribunal will instead advise the applicant that the Tribunal cannot consider this case further.

    DECISION

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

    Rosa Gagliardi
    Member