2106685 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 3028

2106685 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3028 (23 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2106685

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:23 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 23 June 2021 at 2:59pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – repeat review application – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65
Migration Regulations 1994

CASES

Jayasinghe v MIEA (1997) 76 FCR 301
SZASP v MIAC [2007] FCA 771
SZBWJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 164

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 6 June 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 18 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 17 May 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.

4. On 25 May 2021, a Tribunal officer wrote to the applicant advising that it appeared the review application was not a valid application as the Tribunal had already made a decision on an earlier application for review in respect of the same decision (AAT proceedings 2004036).  The Tribunal’s letter invited comments on whether a valid application had been made by 8 June 2021. As at the date of the Tribunal’s decision, the applicant has not responded or otherwise made contact with the Tribunal.   

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.

   Alison Murphy
   Member