1925199 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 299

1925199 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 299 (8 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1925199

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:8 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 January 2020 at 3:32pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – China – protection visa application invalid – non-reviewable decision –no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 347, 338, 412, 441
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 9 September 2019 for review of decision identified in the review application as a ‘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 or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but not a decision that a visa application is invalid.

3. The Tribunal wrote to on 3 December 2019, inviting his comment on the validity of the application. There was no acknowledgement of or reply to the Tribunal’s letter.

4. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   James Silva
   Member