2420080 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4248

_,
__­____«­__€€Í“_­____«{2420080 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4248 (30 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2420080

MEMBER:Kim Rosser

DATE:30 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 30 September 2024 at 2:41pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – China – repeat review application – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994

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 dependants.

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 20 December 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 27 June 2024. 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 12 June 2024. 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 28 August 2024, the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant advising her that the application for review appeared to be invalid because an application for review of the same delegate’s decision was previously made to the Tribunal and has since been decided.  The applicant was given an opportunity to make comments in response to this letter by 11 September 2024.  No response has been received.

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.

   Kim Rosser
   Senior Member