2216694 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1311

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2216694 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1311 (20 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2216694

MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay

DATE:20 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 February 2023 at 2:11pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – 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 Home Affairs on 3 September 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 14 November 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. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant about these circumstances as follows:

   It appears that your application is not a valid application as an application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal. The case number for that first application is 1926915. The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 24 October 2022. 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.

4. As at the date of this decision, no response has been received. 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 24 October 2022. 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.

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.

   Joseph Lindsay
   Member