1909266 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 4561

1909266 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4561 (17 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1909266

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:17 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 17 July 2019 at 2:37pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – invalid visa application – no reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
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 15 April 2019 for review of a protection visa refusal. 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 do not include a decision in relation to an invalid visa application.

3.    The Department made an invalid application for a Protection (subclass 866) visa decision in relation to the applicant’s Protection visa on 2 April 2019.

4.    The Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s authorised recipient on 18 April 2019 stating that it could only review certain kinds of decisions, such as a decision to refuse to grant a visa or a decision to cancel a visa and that it was of the preliminary view that the application was not a valid application as the Tribunal did not have power to review a decision that a visa application had not been validly made.

5.    The Tribunal did not receive a response.

6.    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

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

Angela Cranston
Member