2109004 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 4101

2109004 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4101 (8 September 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2109004

MEMBER:Jane Marquard

DATE:8 September 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 September 2021 at 2:28pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Philippines – repeat application – 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 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 and Border Protection dated 7 December 2016 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 13 July 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 16 June 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. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 15 July 2021 to notify him that it appeared that his application was not valid, as an application for review had previously been made to the Tribunal and a decision made by the Tribunal. The applicant was invited to comment by 29 July 2021. As of the date of this decision, no response was received from the applicant.

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.

   Jane Marquard
   Member