2202736 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 2255

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2202736 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2255 (3 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Stanley Chan (MARN: 0430097)

CASE NUMBER:  2202736

MEMBER:Justine Clarke

DATE:3 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 03 June 2022 at 3:41pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – previous review application decided with no jurisdiction – no reviewable decision – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

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. On 28 February 2022, the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs made on 17 September 2021 to refuse to grant him a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

3. Previously, an application for review of the same delegate’s decision was made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal assigned the case number 2114517 to that previous application for review. On 15 February 2022, the Tribunal made a no jurisdiction decision on that application.

4. On 15 March 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant, by way of an email to the representative, inviting him to comment on the validity of the application for review. The letter requested any comments to be provided in writing by 29 March 2022. The letter also included the following paragraph:

   The Tribunal will not process any further documentation that appears to seek review of the same decision. This means the Tribunal will not treat it as a new application for review. It will not allocate a new case number, or ask you to comment on the validity of any purported review application, or make a further decision about whether it has jurisdiction to review that decision.

5. On 30 March 2022, the representative wrote to the Tribunal, stating that he was still waiting for his client’s response and requesting an extension of time of 14 days in which to respond.

6. The Tribunal does not appear to have responded to the request for extension of time.

7. Notwithstanding, to date, the Tribunal has not received a substantive response to its letter of 15 March 2022.

8. As the delegate’s decision has already been the subject of a no jurisdiction decision by the Tribunal, it is no longer a reviewable decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in relation to that decision.

   DECISION

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

   Justine Clarke
   Member