1712214 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3080

1712214 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3080 (28 June 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1712214

MEMBER:Jane Marquard

DATE:28 June 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 28 June 2017 at 12:35pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Federal Court remittal – No jurisdiction – Unable to review a delegate’s decision twice

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65

CASES

SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164
Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301
SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771

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, dated [June] 2016, to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 8 June 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

3. An application for review of the same delegate’s decision has previously been made to the Tribunal, on 13 October 2016. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 28 November 2016, finding that it had no jurisdiction. Where the Tribunal has received a valid application for review of a reviewable decision and carried out its statutory duty to review the decision under the Act, the decision is no longer a reviewable decision: see for example SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164 at [41] and the cases cited therein. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review a delegate’s decision twice: Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301 and SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771.

4. As the delegate’s decision has already been the subject of a valid review by the Tribunal, it is no longer a reviewable decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in relation to that decision.

   DECISION

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

   Jane Marquard
   Member