2113951 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 4212

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2113951 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4212 (1 November 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2113951

MEMBER:L. Symons

DATE:1 November 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 01 November 2021 at 4:42pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa –China –repeat application – non-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction to review a decision twice –no jurisdiction

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 Home Affairs on 19 April 2018 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 11 October 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 28 September 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 12 October 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to make comments in writing by 26 October 2021 on whether a valid application for review had been made. This letter was sent to him by email to the email address he provided the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not receive a response to its letter.

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.

   L. Symons
   Member