1723615 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1979

1723615 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1979 (11 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1723615

MEMBER:Ann Brandon-Baker

DATE:11 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 11 October 2017 at 1:49pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Decision already reviewed – Multiple review applications lodged of the same decision

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 [in] September 2017. The application was lodged online using [a form], indicating that review is sought of a [Visa] refusal decision [in] March 2017, and citing Departmental file number [file number]. The Tribunal has confirmed that this file number relates to the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant a protection visa [in] March 2017 and that no relevant [Visa] refusal decision has been made. The Tribunal therefore finds that intended to seek review of the protection visa refusal decision dated [in] March 2017 and proceeds accordingly. 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 was previously made to the Tribunal by the applicant. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 7 July 2017. The applicant subsequently lodged four further applications to review the same delegate’s decision and decisions on those applications for review were made by differently constituted Tribunals on 7 August 2017, 30 August 2017 and 12 September 2017.

4. The present application for review is therefore the fifth application for review of the same delegate’s decision.

5. 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.

6. 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

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

   A B Baker
   Senior Member