2216829 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 627

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2216829 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 627 (27 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2216829

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:27 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

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

Statement made on 27 February 2023 at 11:45am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – China – application for review is not a valid application – no jurisdiction to review a decision twice – non-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 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 7 March 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 17 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 made a decision on that application on 1 November 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.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 23 November 2022 inviting comment on the validity of the application for review. The applicant did not respond to the invitation.

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.

   Wendy Banfield
   Member