1720313 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1976

1720313 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1976 (12 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1720313

MEMBER:Tigiilagi Eteuati

DATE:12 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 12 October 2017 at 5:50pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Decision already reviewed – Review of same decision multiple times – Futile and frivolous applications

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

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 [in] March 2017 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 2 September 2017. The Tribunal notes that the review application was lodged online using [a form]. The form indicates review is sought of a [Visa] A refusal decision [in] March 2017, and cites Departmental file number[file number]. The Tribunal has confirmed that this file number relates to the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa [in] March 2017 and that no relevant [visa] refusal decision has been made. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant has intended to seek review of the protection visa refusal decision dated [in] March 2017 and has proceeded accordingly.

3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision. The applicant, who is a citizen of Malaysia, previously sought review in the Tribunal of the delegate’s decision to refuse the grant of the protection visa. On 2 June 2017 the Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed that decision under review. The present application for review is an application for review of the same delegate’s decision which has already been reviewed by the Tribunal.

4. 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: 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.

5. 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.

6. The Tribunal notes that this is the fifth time that the applicant has applied for review of the same decision. After the initial Tribunal decision on 2 June 2017, the applicant applied for review of the same decision on 6 June 2017, again on 15 June 2017, and yet again on 20 July 2017. On each of the occasions the applicant has applied for review of the Minister’s delegate’s decision after the initial decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the application. On each occasion the Tribunal has produced a decision record making it clear that this was the case. It would appear that the applicant continues to lodge review applications with the Tribunal in order to be granted bridging visas to remain in Australia, knowing well that his applications are futile and frivolous and that there is no chance of the applications resulting in him being granted in a substantive visa.

   DECISION

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

   Tigiilagi Eteuati
   Member