2304677 (Refugee)

2304677 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1871 (22 May 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2304677
MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay
DATE:22 May 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 22 May 2023 at 1:38pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – previous application for review validly decided – no longer a reviewable decision – 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

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 November 2022 to refuse to grant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 1 April 2023. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.
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 22 March 2023. 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.
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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Joseph Lindsay
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought review of a decision made by the delegate of the Minister regarding a protection visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was asked to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it retained jurisdiction to review a delegate's decision when that same decision had previously been the subject of a valid review by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal reasoned that once a decision has been validly reviewed by the AAT, it ceases to be a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of further review by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second review of the same delegate's decision. The Tribunal made no orders as it found it had no jurisdiction.

Reasons for decision

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 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Joseph LindsayMember

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established