1802835 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 333

1802835 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 333 (19 February 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1802835

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:19 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 February 2018 at 10:25am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – No jurisdiction – Repeat application – Not reviewable decision

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s.65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

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 on [date] March 2017 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

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

3. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on [date] February 2018. The form states that the applicant was seeking a review of a decision of [date] January 2018 to refuse to grant her a protection visa. However, the delegate’s decision was made on [date] March 2017. The applicant made an application for review of that decision previously, and on [date] August 2017, the Tribunal made a decision on that review application (case no. 1704323).

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. Since the Tribunal’s decision on her application for review, made on [date] August 2017, the applicant has lodged further applications for review with the Tribunal on four successive occasions. These are Tribunal case numbers 1719698, 1724301, 1727301 and 1800392. In each instance, the Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction in the matter. The Tribunal also notes that, in more than one instance, the applicant wrote in her application for review that she seeks review of the Department decision to refuse to grant her a protection visa, and then provided a date that is several days after the most recent Tribunal decision. For instance, the most recent Tribunal decision, in case 1800392, was made on 19 January 2018; yet the applicant nominated 22 January 2018 as the relevant date.

6. The application for review lodged on 4 February 2018 is the applicant’s fifth invalid application for review. The Tribunal considers this application is vexatious, and that the applicant has sought to mislead the Tribunal by giving an incorrect date for the decision for review.

7. 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

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

   James Silva
   Member