2009245 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 3742

2009245 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3742 (10 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2009245

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Margie Bourke

DATE:10 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 10 July 2020 at 2:47pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – application lodged outside of prescribed time limits – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.31

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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 5 May 2020 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 2 June 2020. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. As the applicant was not in immigration detention on the day the applicant was notified of the decision, an application for review of the decision had to be made within 28 days, commencing on that day: r.4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 5 May 2020 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The applicant lodged the application for review online on 2 June 2020, and included her email address for correspondence on the application form.

5. The tribunal wrote to the applicant by letter dated 10 June 2020 and sent by email to the applicant’s nominated email address.  In this letter the tribunal advised that the application for review received on 2 June 2020 may not be valid as it appeared to be lodged outside of the prescribed time limits.  The tribunal invited the applicant to provide comments on the validity of the application for review in writing by 24 June 2020.  The tribunal did not receive any response to its letter dated 10 June 2020 from the applicant.

6. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 5 May 2020: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 1 June 2020.  As the prescribed time limits ended the day before the application for review was made, the tribunal checked there were no applicable public holidays that would validly extend the time period.  There were no public holidays in Victoria in the relevant period. The prescribed period ended on a working day, Monday 1 June 2020.

7. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 2 June 2020 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Margie Bourke
   Member