1800431 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 4319

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{1800431 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4319 (19 September 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Songtao Lu

CASE NUMBER:  1800431

MEMBER:Nathan Goetz

DATE:19 September 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 September 2022 at 9:39am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – China – repeat review application – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994

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 decisions made under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) by a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicants protection visas.

2. The applicants were represented in the review by registered migration agent 0430155.

   BACKGROUND

3. The applicants identify as a married couple. [The first named applicant] identifies as [an age]-year-old female citizen of China, and [the second named applicant] as [an age]-year-old male citizen of China.

4. [In] April 2017 [the second named applicant] arrived in Australia holding a temporary work visa. On 18 July 2017 [the first named applicant] arrived in Australia holding a visitor visa.

5. On 25 July 2017 the applicants applied for protection visas. On 12 December 2017 the delegate refused to grant the protection visas. On 21 December 2017 the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision. On 5 January 2018 the applicants again applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision. It is this later review that the Tribunal is considering.

6. [In] November 2021 the applicants departed Australia and have not returned.

7. On 19 September 2022 the Tribunal finalised the review lodged on 21 December 2017 on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision in AAT case 1732512.

   CONSIDERATION

8. Where the Tribunal has received an 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.

   FINDINGS AND REASONS

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

10. An application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal made a decision on that review on 19 September 2022.

11. As the delegate’s decision has already been the subject of a review by the Tribunal, it is no longer a reviewable decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in relation to that decision.

    decision

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

    Nathan Goetz
    Member