1721890 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1797

1721890 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1797 (6 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1721890

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz

DATE:6 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 06 October 2017 at 10:10am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Application lodged late – Financial hardship – Applicant taken to be notified – Out of time

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.31

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 [in] August 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 13 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. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated [in] August 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. On 15 September 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise him of the issues and to invite him to comment in writing. The applicant responded to the Tribunal’s letter and advised that he was unable to check his emails because he had problems with his smart phone. He could not buy a new phone due to financial hardship. He now has purchased a new second hand phone has become aware that his visa was refused. He apologises for his negligence and asks for a second chance.

5. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s submissions but does not have discretion in his matter.

6. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision [in] August 2017: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended [in] September 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 13 September 2017 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Christopher Smolicz
   Member