2106078 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 3979

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2106078 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3979 (21 September 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2106078

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:21 September 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 21 September 2022 at 11:14am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – previous application for review finalised – no 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 Home Affairs on 26 April 2021 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 May 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 20 September 2022. Its allocated case number is 2106076.

4. 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. On 12 May 2021, the Tribunal emailed the applicant that it had received this application for review of a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa and that the application had been allocated 2016078 as a case number. The email further stated that the applicant appeared to be seeking review of the same decision as 2106076 and that that his application will not progress until the first application has been finalised by the Tribunal. In the same email, the applicant was offered with the opportunity to withdraw the duplicated application for review. The Tribunal’s records indicate that the applicant did not take advantage of this opportunity.

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.

   Brendan Darcy
   Member