1811743 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 1702

1811743 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1702 (17 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1811743

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:17 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 17 May 2018 at 7:44am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Invalid application – No jurisdiction to review a delegate’s decision twice – Tribunal is unable to consider the applicant’s case further

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 24 April 2017 to refuse to grant protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 24 April 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 5 February 2018. 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.

4. 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.

5. Accordingly, as indicated in the Tribunal’s letter to the applicant dated 1 May 2018, if the Tribunal 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

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

   Nora Lamont
   Member