1805961 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1178

1805961 (Migration) [2018] AATA 1178 (13 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1805961

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:13 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 March 2018 at 4:33pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Refugee – Subclass 200 – Practice and procedure – No jurisdiction – Decision not reviewable

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 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 6 March 2018 for review of a decision to refuse the applicant a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Refugee (subclass 200) visa. 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. A decision to refuse a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Refugee (subclass 200) visa is not a decision which falls within the definitions of Part 5 and Part 7 reviewable decisions in Sections 338 and 411 of the Act.

3. On 9 March 2018 the applicant was advised in writing that his application appears not to be a decision which is able to be reviewed by the Tribunal. He was invited to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 23 March 2018. On 10 March 2018 the applicant emailed the following response to the Tribunal:

   “Hello to you great court makers.  I come to you to know for my request was refused and know what I must do precisely because I respect the rules I am [refugee] and I am out of my country more than I in [another country] and again I am major and answer of myself I have provided all the documents are there some things that are missing kindly answer me”.

4. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s response and that he appears confused about the options available to him in the circumstances.  In earlier communications with the applicant the Tribunal provided him with information to assist him to obtain the details of a registered migration agent.   The applicant’s response doesn’t alter the fact that the type of decision he is seeking to be reviewed is not one which is captured under the definitions in Sections 338 and 411 of the Act. 

5. 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

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

   Tania Flood
   Member