Navicokalou (Migration) - [2024] AATA 537

Navicokalou (Migration) [2024] AATA 537 (12 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Watisoni Navicokalou
CASE NUMBER:  2404381
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCCC2024/1259562 PNJ
MEMBER:Namoi Dougall
DATE:12 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 12 March 2024 at 4:34pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – 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
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 27 February 2024 to refuse to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 8 March 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 11 March 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.
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.
Namoi Dougall
Member

Details

AGLC: Navicokalou (Migration) [2024] AATA 537
Case: [2024] AATA 537
Decision Date: 12 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Navicokalou, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The dispute concerned the applicant's eligibility for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The core of the matter was whether the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to review a decision that had already been the subject of a prior review.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Migration Review Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a repeat review application when the delegate's original decision had already been reviewed by the Tribunal. This question turned on the interpretation of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the relevant regulations concerning the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal Member, Namoi Dougall, reasoned that once a delegate's decision has been validly reviewed by the Tribunal, it ceases to be a "reviewable decision" for the purposes of further review. Consequently, the Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to that specific decision is extinguished. The Member concluded that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's repeat review application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

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.Namoi DougallMember

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.