1923390 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5753

1923390 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5753 (17 December 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1923390

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Justin Meyer

DATE:17 December 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 17 December 2019 at 11:26am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – applicants absent from Australia at time of review application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 65, 412(2), (3)

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 has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 31 July 2019, to refuse to grant protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). This decision is reviewable under s.411 of the Act.

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 August 2019. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.412(2) and (3) of the Act, an application for review for a decision of this type may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the primary decision, and who is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made. ‘Migration zone’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.

4. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicants were absent from Australia at time of the review application, based on movement records. The Tribunal finds that the applicants were not in the migration zone at the relevant time. As such, the application for review is not a valid application made under s.412 and it follows the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Justin Meyer
   Member