2100594 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2636

2100594 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2636 (11 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2100594

MEMBER:Steven Griffiths

DATE:11 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 11 June 2021 at 2:53pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – China – previous application for review completed – no longer a reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994

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 13 November 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 19 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 made a decision on that application on 26 June 2020.  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. The Tribunal notes the applicant was advised, by email sent 8 February 2021, that the application for review was not a valid application for review as it was a repeat application and the Tribunal will not process any further documentation that appears to seek a review of the decision dated 13 November 2017, while providing the applicant until 22 February 2021 to make a submission.

5. The Tribunal notes the applicant did not make a submission.  

6. 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

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

   Steven Griffiths
   Member