1818382 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 4872

1818382 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 4872 (3 November 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1818382

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:3 November 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 03 November 2020 at 9:54am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – repeat application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), 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 5 June 2018 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 24 June 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 2 November 2020, based on the applicant being a non-citizen who was not in Australia at the time of the decision. Its AAT case number was 1818384.

4. The applicant lodged this subsequent application for review of the same decision on the same date as 1818284 but at a later time. 

5. On 27 June 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant informing him the subsequent application will not progress until the first application has been finalised and that the applicant should sign a withdrawal form and forward the completed form to the Tribunal. Neither the applicant nor anyone the applicant’s behalf responded to this. It is noted the applicant departed Australia [in] March 2020.

6. 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.

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.

   Brendan Darcy
   Member