1726470 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2759

1726470 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2759 (30 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1726470

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:           Malaysia

MEMBER:Amanda Paxton

DATE:30 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 30 November 2017 at 8:13am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Review application previously decided – No longer a reviewable decision – No Jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65

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

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 [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 29 October 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 was previously made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 22 September 2017. 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

4. On 9 November 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a letter setting out the Tribunal’s initial view that this applicant is not a valid application and inviting him to comment. He did not do so.

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.

   DECISION

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

   Amanda Paxton
   Member