2120115 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 972

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2120115 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 972 (6 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2120115

MEMBER:Justin Meyer

DATE:6 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 6 April 2022 at 4:44pm

CATCHWORDS

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

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, 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 16 July 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 28 December 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 19 November 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. 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

5. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Justin Meyer
   Member