2200308 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 1506

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2200308 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1506 (19 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2200308

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:19 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 19 May 2022 at 4:00pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection Visa – Thailand – repeat application – 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 21 January 2020 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 7 January 2022. 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 (case number 2002104). The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 30 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. A natural justice letter was sent to the applicant on 11 January 2022. However, the applicant did not respond in the time given.

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.

   C. Packer
   Member