2100411 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 638

2100411 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 638 (9 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2100411

MEMBER:Cathrine Burnett-Wake

DATE:9 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 9 March 2021 at 8:42am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – previous application for review heard and finalised – no reviewable decision – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – 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 dependants.

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 15 January 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 13 January 2021. 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 decided on that application on 12 December 2019. 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. On 4 February 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, inviting them to comment on the validity of their application of review since the Tribunal had already decided on their application. No response was received from the applicant.

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.

   DECISION

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

   Cathrine Burnett-Wake
   Member