1723572 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2942

1723572 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2942 (30 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1723572

MEMBER:Peter Vlahos

DATE:30 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 30 November 2017 at 6:34am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – No relevant decision made for review – Application not properly made

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 on 29 September 2017 for review. 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 of the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. On 15 August 2017, the Tribunal (differently constituted) made a decision that it did not have jurisdiction to review the visa refusal [in] September 2017 (decision no. 1717993). 

4. The applicant subsequently lodged another application for review of the same decision on 29 August 2017 (decision no. 1719744) which also resulted in a finding of no jurisdiction.  

5. On 17 October 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to provide comments as to whether a valid application had been made and those should be submitted to the Tribunal by 31 October 2017.

6. As at the writing of this decision no response had been provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

7. 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

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

   Peter Vlahos
   Member