1810625 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 1973

1810625 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1973 (17 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1810625

MEMBER:Peter Vlahos

DATE:17 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 17 May 2018 at 12:13pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Repeated review application – Non-reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 411, 412

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 16 April 2018 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 and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. On 9 March 2017, the Tribunal (differently constituted) (decision no. 1611236) made a decision not to grant a visa.

4. The applicant subsequently lodged another nine applications[1] for review of the same decision which all resulted in the Tribunal finding no jurisdiction because the decision had already been reviewed. The Tribunal notes that with this decision the applicant has made (in total) ten attempts to review a decision that had already been reviewed on other occasions by this Tribunal.

   [1](Decisions no. 1611236, 1709149, 1721455,1725241, 1731605,1806327,1704611,17179311723282,1727382and 1800257).

5. On 1 May 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to provide comments as to whether a valid application had been made and required her reasons should be submitted to the Tribunal by no later than 15 May 2018. On 14 May 2018, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal (via email)[2] stating to the Tribunal the reasons for the applicant’s persistence in submitting numerous applications for review. The applicant submitted that she had experienced difficulties in getting assistance and dealing with the review process. While the Tribunal expresses its sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances in not having the resources to engage a registered migration agent or qualified legal practitioner to assist with her application, it still is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that she has proper advice before her application is dealt with by the Tribunal.

   [2] AAT File No. 1810625 Folio [32]

6. It should also be noted that once the Tribunal has dealt with the applicant’s claim and provided its decision to the applicant the Tribunal cannot re-visit the decision it has made at some future date as required by the applicant.

7. As no reviewable decision had been made at the time the review application was lodged it follows that the application 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