Santhyogu (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3624

Santhyogu (Migration) [2018] AATA 3624 (11 September 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Nihal Croos Santhyogu

CASE NUMBER:  1825735

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ

MEMBER:Alison Mercer

DATE:11 September 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 September 2018 at 5:19pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – review application previously decided – no Tribunal-reviewable decision – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347, 411, 412
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.02

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 31 August 2018 to refuse to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 4 September 2018. 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 11 September 2018. 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. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant via email on 4 September 2018 to advise that this appeared be to a second application for review seeking review of the same decision that the applicant asked the Tribunal to review in an application received by the Tribunal on 3 September 2018, in which case the Tribunal proposed not to proceed with it until the first review application was finalised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a withdrawal form, noting that it would still review his first review application in any case.

5. The Tribunal did not receive any response from the applicant.  On 11 September 2018 at 4.42pm, the Tribunal made a decision to affirm the decision of 31 August 2018 under review in MRD case 1825579 to refuse to grant the applicant a subclass 050 Bridging Visa E.

6. 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

7. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Alison Mercer
   Member