2424639 (Refugee)

_,
______«__€€Í“_____«{2424639 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4252 (9 October 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2424639
MEMBER:P. Maishman
DATE:9 October 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 09 October 2024 at 8:45am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – application for review of same decision previously made – review finalised and no longer reviewable decision – no response to invitation to comment – 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 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 13 February 2018 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 23 July 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 (AAT No. 1803969). The Tribunal made a decision on that application on 3 July 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.
The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s invitation to comment on the validity of the application.
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.
P. Maishman
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision concerning a protection visa application. The delegate's decision had previously been the subject of a valid review by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it retained jurisdiction to review a decision that had already been finalised through a prior review process.

The Tribunal reasoned that once a decision has been validly reviewed, it ceases to be a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of further review. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application for review of the same decision. The Tribunal noted that no response was received to its invitation to comment.

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.P. MaishmanMember

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established