2420080 (Refugee)

_,
______«__€€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

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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kim Rosser
Senior Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister regarding a protection visa application. The dispute concerned whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had jurisdiction to conduct a further review of the delegate's decision. The decision was made by Senior Member Kim Rosser of the AAT.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review a delegate's decision that had already been the subject of a previous, valid review by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal reasoned that once a delegate's decision has been validly reviewed by the Tribunal, that original decision is no longer a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of further review. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a repeat review application concerning the same delegate's decision. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

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.Kim RosserSenior Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established