2002890 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 1322

2002890 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1322 (22 April 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2002890

MEMBER:Ann Duffield

DATE:22 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 22 April 2020 at 12:18pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – invalid visa application – failure to provide personal identifiers – no reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 46, 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 14 February 2020 for review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs that your application for a protection visa was not valid. 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.

3. 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 your application for a visa is invalid because it did not meet section 46(2A) of the Migration Act 1958. Under that provision, prescribed circumstances existed and you were required by an officer to provide personal identifiers in relation to the application. As you have not provided your personal identifiers, and as the Minister has not waived the operation of section 46(2A) in relation to your application, your application is invalid.

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.

   Ann Duffield
   Senior Member