2103892 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2812

2103892 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2812 (21 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2103892

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:21 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Australian Capital Territory

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

Statement made on 21 June 2021 at 4:31pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – repeat application – non-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction to review a decision twice – 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

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 9 April 2020 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 26 March 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 22 February 2021 (decision no: 2007759). 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 29 March 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant in the interests of natural justice advising that it appeared that his application for review was not valid.  It was explained to the applicant that 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.  The Tribunal also explained that it would not process any further documentation that appears to seek review of the same decision by the delegate dated 9 April 2020.

5. The applicant was granted until 12 April 2021 to provide comments on the validity of his visa application given the above.  As at the time of writing, the applicant has not responded or provided further information.

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.

   Rosa Gagliardi
   Member