Peck and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] AATA 608

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 608

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/2863

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ANDREW PECK

Applicant

And MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date14 July 2008

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction to review the matter which is the subject of the applicant’s application to this tribunal, and will not proceed with the application.  

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction - refusal by Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) of protection visa - tribunal has no jurisdiction to review decision of RRT.

Re PG Laird and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, President Davies J, 10 May 1979

WRITTEN REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION

14 July 2008   Deputy President D G Jarvis

1.      On 19 June 2008 the applicant applied to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) made on 16 May 2008.  According to the application for review, the decision of the RRT was received on 22 May 2008.  A copy of the decision of the RRT was not attached to the application for review, but I understand that the RRT’s decision was that the applicant’s wife did not have the status of a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention.

2.      The respondent contended that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the RRT.

3.      The applicant was represented at the hearing of this matter this morning by his wife.  She asserted that there were certain errors or omissions in the reasons for the decision of the RRT. 

4.      The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is unlike a superior court.  It has no inherent jurisdiction.  It may only exercise the powers that are conferred on it by legislation.  This was made clear in Re PG Laird and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (10 May 1979) by President Davies J in an application relating to the jurisdiction of this tribunal to review a decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.  His Honour said:

“An application for review may not be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal unless an enactment specifically empowers the making of that application.”

5.      The decision by the RRT to refuse Mrs Peck refugee status was made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That Act does not contain any provision empowering this tribunal to review decisions of the RRT. I accordingly have no jurisdiction to deal with the application that has been made to this tribunal.

6. I explained to Mr and Mrs Peck during the hearing this morning that the Federal Magistrates’ Court has some limited jurisdiction to review decisions of the RRT. Any application to that Court should have been made within twenty-eight days of the actual notification of the decision of the RRT, but under s477(2) of the Migration Act the Federal Magistrates’ Court may, by order, extend that twenty-eight day period by up to fifty-six days, if an application for an order extending the time is made within eighty-four days of the date of notification of the decision, and if the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension of time.

7.      I have not read the decision of the RRT, and make no comment on whether there is any basis for any application to the Federal Magistrates’ Court for an extension of time, or any basis for challenging the decision of the RRT in that Court.

8.      Mrs Peck raised a number of other concerns, which included the following matters.  She referred to various communications or dealings that she or her husband had had with the Supreme Court, District Court, the Public Trustee, the Guardianship Board, the Department of Health and the Australian embassy in Berlin.  She also referred to her husband’s state of health, and his need to undergo an operation on his shoulder, which is currently preventing him from pursuing his work as a plumber.  She also asserted that she and her husband had been discriminated against, that they were members of a minority, and that there was a conspiracy between certain authorities with whom she and her husband had had dealings, which had prevented her from obtaining refugee status or a spouse visa.  Mr Peck confirmed that he wishes to have the operation and for his wife to become a citizen of Australia. 

9.      This tribunal does not have any power to review decisions made by the Supreme Court, the District Court, the State Department of Health or the Guardianship Board.  They are State authorities.

10.     A large number of different Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament confer jurisdiction on this tribunal to review decisions made by Commonwealth government ministers, officials or other tribunals.  In the absence of such a decision, this tribunal has no jurisdiction.  No application has been made to review a decision of the respondent or of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, other than the application before me this morning, over which I have no jurisdiction.

11.       This tribunal has no power to consider any of the other concerns that Mr and Mrs Peck raised in the hearing before me this morning.  However, in an endeavour to help them, I provided them with a list containing details of the contact numbers and addresses of organisations that may assist them to obtain legal advice or migration advice.

12.     Mrs Peck also referred during the hearing this morning to an application she made to this tribunal to review a decision in a tax matter.  I am investigating whether that matter entails a decision that is reviewable by this tribunal, and also what stage the matter has reached, and (if the decision is reviewable) whether it would be appropriate for the hearing of that matter to be expedited, as she has requested.

Decision

13.     My formal decision is as follows.  The tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction to review the matter which is the subject of the applicant’s application to this tribunal, and will not proceed with the application.

I certify that the 13 preceding paragraphs are a
true copy of the reasons for the decision
herein of Deputy President D G Jarvis

Signed:         .....................................................................................
L. Wunderer  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  14 July 2008
Date of Decision  14 July 2008
Applicant  In Person
Advocate for the Applicant       Mrs Peck
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr R Prince
Solicitor for the Respondent     Australian Government Solicitor