2120231 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 1362

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2120231 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1362 (4 April 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2120231

MEMBER:Karen McNamara

DATE:4 April 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 4 April 2022 at 4:56pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – application was not valid – no jurisdiction to review a decision twice – non-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 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 1 August 2019 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 30 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 25 November 2021 (AAT case file 1921719). 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 4 January 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (dispatched by email to the authorised recipient), inviting comment on the validity of the application for review and potential lack of jurisdiction. The applicant was invited to respond by 18 January 2022.

5. There was no response to the Tribunal’s letter either within the time frame stated or as at the time and date of this decision.

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.

   Karen McNamara
   Member