1931287 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 1605

1931287 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1605 (6 April 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1931287

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:6 April 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

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

Statement made on 06 April 2021 at 11:17am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – 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 3 November 2019 for review of a decision to refuse application for a Protection (Class XA) 866 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 visas of various kinds, but the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that an application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal on 3 November 2019. Therefore, the current application for review is not valid.

3. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 12 December 2019 inviting him to provide comments on the validity of the application for review by 27 December 2019. On 22 December 2019 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal updating has contact details and providing a copy of his passport information. The applicant did not respond to the invitation on the validity of his application.

4. 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

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

   Wendy Banfield
   Member