1806028 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2527

1806028 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2527 (16 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1806028

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:16 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 April 2018 at 10:50am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia –Same delegate’s decision previously reviewed by the Tribunal – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, 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 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 30 June 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 7 March 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. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 7 February 2018[1]. 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.

   [1] AAT No. 1714983

4. On 16 March 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting his comments on its preliminary view that his review application was invalid.  No response was received. 

5. 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.

6. The Tribunal notes if it receives any further documentation that appears to seek review of the same delegate’s decision, it will not treat it as a new application for review. It will not allocate a new case number, or ask the applicant to comment on the validity of any purported review application, or make a further decision about whether it has jurisdiction to review that decision. The Tribunal will instead advise the applicant that the Tribunal cannot consider this case further.

   DECISION

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

   Nicole Burns
   Member