1728319 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 822

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{1728319 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 822 (16 February 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1728319

MEMBER:Rachelle Johnston

DATE:16 February 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 16 February 2024 at 12:19pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – previous application made earlier on same day finalised – no longer renewable decision – second application not withdrawn – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), 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 dependants.

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 and Border Protection on 10 November 2017 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 November 2017, at approximately 12:29pm. 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, at approximately 11:56am on 15 November 2017, i.e., earlier on the same day. The Tribunal made a decision on that application earlier today, 16 February 2024 (case number 1728310).  

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. On 28 November 2017 the Tribunal advised the applicant in writing that on 15 November 2017 it had received a second application from him seeking review of the same decision and explained that second application would not progress until the first application was finalised. The Tribunal explained if the applicant did not wish to proceed with the second application, he could provide the Tribunal with a withdrawal form. No withdrawal form was received by the Tribunal.

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.

   Rachelle Johnston
   Member