2120206 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 1306

2120206 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1306 (10 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2120206

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:10 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 March 2022 at 4:28pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) visa – Iran – ‘fast track decision’ made in relation to a protection visa application – non-reviewable decision –no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 30 December 2021 for review of a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) 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 (Cth) (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 (Cth). Sections 338 and 411 of the Act and reg 4.02(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) set out the range of decisions that are reviewable in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal. They include decisions to refuse and cancel a protection visa, but they do not include a ‘fast track decision’ made in relation to a protection visa application: s 411(2)(c).

3. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 20 January 2022 indicating that the application does not appear to be a valid application asking for comment. The applicant provided a range of responses and documents which addressed, among other things, the substantive claims for protection and various injustices. The submissions and documents did not directly address the issue that the decision the subject of review is not a reviewable decision by the Tribunal

4. The decision that is the subject of the review application is a fast track decision and is not a 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.

   David McCulloch
   Member