2107451 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2891

2107451 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2891 (30 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2107451

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:30 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 30 June 2021 at 11:56am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – review application out of time – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 dependants.

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 2 July 2019 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 7 June 2021. 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 2 July 2019 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 2 July 2019: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 29 July 2019. the application for review was lodged in June 2021.

4. In his explanation to the Tribunal the applicant states that he was confused by the different dates for visa expiry and the lodgement of the review application. given the significant delay in the lodgement of this review application, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s explanation unpersuasive. The applicant states that he would experience harm if returned to his home country. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s submission but is mindful that it has no discretion to extend the period in which an application for review can be lodged.

5. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 7 June 2021 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Kira Raif
   Senior Member