1829263 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 4573

1829263 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4573 (15 November 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1829263

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:15 November 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 15 November 2018 at 7:48am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – no reviewable decision – bogus Notification Letter and Decision record was used – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 29
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 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 An application was made to the Tribunal on 6 October 2018 for review of an application which was withdrawn on 21 September 2018. Further, the Notification Letter and Decision record provided with the application did not match the Department of Home Affairs records.   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decisions to refuse visas of various kinds, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the application was withdrawn on 21 September 2018 and a bogus Notification Letter and Decision record was used for the application for review therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

3. As there is no reviewable decision it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Nora Lamont
   Member