1727378 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2989

1727378 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2989 (12 December 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1727378

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:12 December 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 December 2017 at 2:07pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – No Jurisdiction – Decision already reviewed – No longer a reviewable decision – No jurisdiction to review decision twice

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 6 November 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 13 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. 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.

   Tania Flood
   Member