2115524 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 843

2115524 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 843 (16 February 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2115524

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:16 February 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 February 2022 at 2:26pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Malaysia – applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements – out of time – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.31

CASES
DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387

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 Home Affairs on 29 September 2021 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 October 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: reg 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). In DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387, the Federal Circuit Court held that the prescribed period in r.4.31 commences on, and includes, the day the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision: at [44] – [46].

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 29 September 2021 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. On 4 November 2021, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to invite comment on the validity for the application for review, and to do so by 18 November 2021. The Tribunal did not receive any comment or submissions at all, either from the applicant or on the applicant’s behalf, right up to the time of making this decision.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 29 September 2021: s.494C of the Act. Therefore, the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 26 October 2021.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 30 October 2021 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Brendan Darcy
   Member