1929496 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 1659

1929496 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1659 (23 April 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1929496

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE:23 April 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 23 April 2021 at 11:21am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – 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 17 October 2019 for review of a decision to refuse to grant a Protection visa. 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 and cancel visas of various kinds and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that at the time the review application was lodged, no relevant decision had been made.

3. At the time of the application for review, the applicant supplied the Tribunal with a notification of decision from the Department of Home Affairs, dated 1 October 2019. However, departmental records indicated that no decision had been made.

4. On 17 February 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review. No response was received.

5. On 22 April 2021, the Department advised that “the refusal has been reversed and they have begun the s56 process again. The application is ongoing.”

6. As a reviewable decision has not been made, it follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Sheridan Lee
   Member