1728078 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2647

1728078 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2647 (21 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1728078

MEMBER:K. Chapman

DATE:21 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 21 November 2017 at 2:33pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia– Repeated application – Decision already reviewed – Non-reviewable decision – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 [in] November 2017. The Tribunal notes that the review application was lodged online using Form ‘eR1’, indicates review is sought of a Subclass 010 Bridging Visa A refusal decision [in] March 2017, and cites Departmental 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 Bridging Visa A 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 proceeds accordingly.

3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

4. The applicant, who is a citizen of Malaysia, has made four prior applications for review of the same delegate’s decision dated [in] March 2017. The Tribunal (differently constituted) made a decision on the original application on 26 July 2017, affirming the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.[1] Since that decision, the Tribunal dealt with further review applications on 18 September 2017[2], 17 October 2017[3] and 20 November 2017[4] regarding the same delegate’s decision, finding that it had no jurisdiction. The present application for review is, therefore, the fifth review application that has been made with respect to the delegate’s decision dated [in] March 2017.

   [1] AAT (Migration) Case No. 1704769.

   [2] AAT (Migration) Case No. 1716597.

   [3] AAT (Migration) Case No. 1723285.

   [4] AAT (Migration) Case No. 1727835 (note: the Tribunal was constituted as is presently).

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.

7. The Tribunal is concerned that four vexatious review applications have been lodged by [the applicant] since the decision was made on his initial review application. Of further concern to the Tribunal is that, at the date of this decision, [the applicant] appears to hold a Bridging Visa A to which he may not be entitled. The Tribunal draws this to the attention of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for any further action that may be appropriate.

   DECISION

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

   K. Chapman
   Member