1804010 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 717

1804010 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 717 (6 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1804010

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:6 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 06 March 2018 at 7:03pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Invalid application – No jurisdiction

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

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 [date] January 2018 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 15 February 2018. 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. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated [date] January 2018 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

3. The Tribunal sent an email to the applicant on 19 February 2018 that advised the application for review appeared to be invalid, and provided until 5 March 2018 for any comments. In comments provided on 5 March 2018 he stated he was not going to apply for a review, but then his wife refused to return to Malaysia and she had sought to apply for another visa. He therefore decided to stay and try to convince the wife to return with him to Malaysia, and that is why he made the review application. However, his explanation did not show that he had been unable to lodge a review application within the prescribed period.

4. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision [in] January 2018. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended [in] February 2018. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 15 February 2018 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   C. Packer
   Member