1805108 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 711

1805108 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 711 (12 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1805108

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:12 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 March 2018 at 10:47am

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
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] April 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] February 2018 (the date of lodgement) to refuse to grant him a protection visa. However, the decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa was made on [date] April 2017.

4. The applicant made an application for review of the same delegate’s decision previously, and on 10 November 2017, the Tribunal made a decision on that review application (case no. 1708854).

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. Since the Tribunal’s decision of 10 November 2017, the applicant has lodged further application for review with the Tribunal on four occasions. In each instance, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The Tribunal considers this application for review, the applicant’s fifth invalid application, to be vexatious.

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