KMZY and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] AATA 340

[2013] AATA 340

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2013/1469
Re	KMZY
APPLICANT
And	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
RESPONDENT

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal	PROFESSOR RM CREYKE, SENIOR MEMBER
Date	24 May 2013
Place	Canberra

The application is dismissed for no jurisdiction.

......................................[sgd]..................................

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction

Legislation

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

24 May 2013

1. On 10 March 2013, the Applicant’s application to the Department of Immigration to be granted a refugee and humanitarian visa (class XB) was rejected by a Senior Migration Officer.

2. On 5 April 2013, he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.

3. The Tribunal responded with a letter asking the Applicant to explain why he considers the Tribunal had jurisdiction or authority to review his application. In the Tribunal’s view, the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) did not grant jurisdiction over class XB visa applications to it.

4. The Applicant responded with a submission by email dated 12 April 2013, with accompanying documents.  A telephone hearing was held to discuss the application on 20 May 2013.

5. During that hearing, the Senior Member explained to the Applicant that she had examined his documents and the relevant law. The legislation establishing the Tribunal only provides that it has authority to review decisions which is given by Parliament.

6. In the case of migration claims the Tribunal’s review powers are limited. In particular, Parliament has not allocated authority to the Tribunal to review applications for refugee and humanitarian visas. Accordingly the Tribunal has no option but to reject the Applicant’s application since it has no authority to consider the decision of the Senior Migration Officer which is under dispute.

7. On 20 May 2013, the Applicant sought an explanation in writing for the decision as he said he could not properly hear the explanation during the telephone call. The reasons are now explained and the Tribunal trusts that is sufficient for him to understand why the Tribunal had no choice except to reject his application to it.

I certify that the preceding 7 (seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

.......................................[sgd].................................

Associate

Dated 24 May 2013

Date of hearing	20 May 2013
Applicant	Self-represented