2406789 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2121

2406789 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2121 (27 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2406789

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:27 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 May 2024 at 10:11am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Vanuatu – invalid application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29
Migration Act 1958, ss 46, 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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application was made to the Tribunal on 1 April 2024 for review of a decision that his application for a protection visa was invalid because it did not meet section 46(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (which required the applicant to provide personal identifiers in relation to the application).

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction in respect of this application.

3. 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 or cancel visas and a range of sponsorship and nomination decisions but not a decision but not a decision where the visa application has been determined invalid.

4. On 9 April 2024 a Tribunal officer wrote to the applicant notifying them that it appeared the decision was not reviewable by the Tribunal and inviting his comment on the validity of the review application. The applicant made contact with the Tribunal on several occasions with queries about his visa application but did not provide comments on the validity of the application.

5. As the delegate’s decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 of the Act it follows that the application for review was not properly made and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Alison Murphy
   Member