1818114 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2782

1818114 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2782 (19 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1818114

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Thailand

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:19 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 19 July 2018 at 11:51am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Thailand – Notification of the Department’s decision – No evidence that the  applicant was not properly notified – No discretion to grant an extension of time – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 on 25 January 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 20 June 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.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 25 January 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The applicant responded to the Tribunal’s invitation to comment on the validity of his application. In his response he said:

   I come from Thailand and hardly speak and understand word of English and I left Thailand because I can not returns to my country my life is in danger in real trouble. I came across a person who claimed to be a visa expert and advised that would help me to complete my visa application on time.

   I made an application for Protection Visa on the basis of being my life in danger upon return back to my home country. I have been in relationship where I involved myself into a situation which has led to my escae from my home country. I afraid to return to Thailand However, it went wrong everywhere and I was unable to go back . This has led whole new danger for myself if I go back to my home country.

   Further to this already massive issue related to my safety, my application for visa and then review has been mishandled and I have nowhere to go and not even sure how to seek help related to this matter.

   I would like to request to AAT member to use his/her discretion to accept my matter because refusing to accept my application will close all possible ways to present me matter before the AAT. Therefore, AAT member should give me chance to present all arguments and submit all supporting documents so that tribunal could decide on my matter. I am willing to provide any information required by AAT to accept this matter.

5. Having considered the response of the applicant, the Tribunal notes that the response does not indicate that the applicant was not properly notified, nor that there was any other defect in notification. The Tribunal notes that it does not have discretion to extend time for the making of an application.

6. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 25 January 2017: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 21 February 2017.

7. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 20 June 2018 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Sean Baker
   Member