1803573 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 915

1803573 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 915 (8 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1803573

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:8 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 08 March 2018 at 7:57pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Not reviewable decision

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

CASES

SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164
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. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 11 February 2018. 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.  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 more than once: Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301 and SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 13 February 2018 in the interests of natural justice to highlight that it appeared that the application for review was not valid as this was the fourth application for review of the same decision. 

5. The applicant was given the opportunity to comment on whether he considered a valid application had been made by him but he has elected not to respond. 

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.

   Rosa Gagliardi
   Member