1708959 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa decision. The applicant had previously lodged an application for review with the Tribunal, which found it lacked jurisdiction because the application was not lodged within the prescribed time. Following a defective notification of this refusal decision, the applicant was re-notified, and a second application for review was lodged, again outside the prescribed period. The central dispute before Deputy J.l Redfern Psm P was whether the Tribunal had the power to revoke its earlier decision and reconsider the matter, and if so, whether it should exercise that power.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, whether the second application for review was lodged within the prescribed time, and secondly, whether the Tribunal possessed the power to revoke its prior decision and reopen the matter. The Tribunal was required to determine if the second notification of the refusal decision complied with statutory requirements and, consequently, if the second application for review was validly made within the statutory timeframe. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider the principles governing its power to revoke and reconsider its own decisions, particularly in light of previous AAT and Federal Court authorities.

The Tribunal determined that the second application for review was not lodged within the prescribed period, meaning the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to that application. However, the Tribunal found it had the power to revoke its earlier decision, which had found a lack of jurisdiction. This power, as established in cases such as *Mora (Migration) [2016] AATA 4198* and drawing on *Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11*, allows for the correction of obvious errors. The Tribunal considered that while the power to revoke exists, the wisdom of exercising it requires careful consideration of factors including fairness to the parties and the nature of any error, noting that reconsideration is rarely appropriate for mere second thoughts or changes of mind. In this instance, the Tribunal concluded that it should revoke its first decision and reopen that matter, substituting it with a decision that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct a review.