2414391 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2932

2414391 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2932 (31 July 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2414391

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Indonesia

MEMBER:Paul Windsor

DATE:31 July 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 31 July 2024 at 2:49 pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – review application made out of time – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 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 Immigration and Border Protection on 16 October 2013 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 May 2024. 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).

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 16 October 2013 and dispatched by post. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 7 June 2024 advising him that it appears his application for review is not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit.

5. The applicant responded on 8 June 2014. In his response the applicant made the following comment in relation to why his review application was made out of time:

   ‘Tribunal has made decision to dismissed my application under section 426A(1A)(b) of Migration Act 1958. However in notification from Tribunal allow me to reinstatement in writing under section 426(B). Adminstrative (sic) Appeal Tribunal. It was happened because the expiry date at MyVevo application is 35 days and meanwhile in notification of refusal application is 28 calender days (sic). This two expired date make we confused and misleading about our last date to appeal in Administrative Appeal Tribunal. Cause of multiple expired date, I did not know my appeal application to be out of time.’

6. The Tribunal considers this is a nonsensical response because the issues raised are completely unrelated to the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has not made a decision under s 426A(1A)(b) of the Act to dismiss a review application made by the applicant and therefore has never notified him that he could seek reinstatement of the application within a certain time period.

7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision by the delegate, to refuse to grant him a protection visa under s 65 of the Act, 7 working days after the date of the document, that is, on 25 October 2013: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 21 November 2013.

8. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 30 May 2024 the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Paul Windsor
   Member