2100477 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 5629

2100477 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5629 (22 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2100477

MEMBER:Phoebe Dunn

DATE:22 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 June 2021 at 3:49pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – repeat review application – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – 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 23 July 2018 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 15 January 2021. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

3. In the review application, the applicants stated that they were seeking review of decision to refuse a Subclass 866 Protection visa and referenced Departmental file [number] on the application form.  The applicants attached a copy of the Tribunal’s earlier decision in relation to the same decision of the delegate dated 4 February 2020 (Tribunal file 1821337), being a confirmation of dismissal made on 13 January 2021, together with a copy of the letter notifying the applicants of that decision dated 13 January 2021.

4. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that an application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal (Tribunal file 1821337). The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 13 January 2021. 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.

5. By letter dated 1 February 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting the applicant to comment in writing by 15 February 2021 on its preliminary view that the application for review was not a valid application on the basis that the applicant had made a prior application to the Tribunal for review of the same decision (Tribunal file 1821337) and the Tribunal had already carried out its duty to review that decision under the Act, and as such the decision was no longer a reviewable decision.  The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence and no further submissions or documentation has been received by the Tribunal in relation to this review.

6. Following careful consideration of the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is seeking review of the same decision that has already been the subject of a review application before this Tribunal (Tribunal file 1821337) and in respect of which the Tribunal has already carried out its duty to review that decision under the Act and made a decision on 13 January 2021.

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.

   Phoebe Dunn
   Member