1607577 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4346

1607577 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4346 (23 August 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Manpreet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1607577

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/2865453

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:23 August 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 23 August 2016 at 9:48am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 20 February 2015, to cancel the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 26 May 2016. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.347(1)(b) of the Act and r.4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) an application for review of this decision had to be made within 7 working days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 20 February 2015 and dispatched by post. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. On 27 July 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email addressed to his representative and told the applicant that it did not believe his application was valid as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The applicant was invited to comment in writing by 10 August 2016 on whether he believed a valid application for review had been made. On 10 August 2016 the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal by email and asked for a copy of the cancellation decision. The representative said the applicant had not received the cancellation decision and was not certain whether the cancellation took place and had not received any correspondence from the Department in relation to the cancellation and that the cancellation decision could be invalid if the correct procedures were not followed. The representative said that the applicant had not received the notification and was unable to comment on whether the department sent the notification to his correct address which was required by law. On 10 August 2016 the Tribunal responded by email to the applicant’s representative and attached the Department decision record. No further reply has been received by the Tribunal from the applicant or on the applicant’s behalf.

6. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the information before it and finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 3 March 2015. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 12 March 2015. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 26 May 2016 it follows that the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   James Jolliffe
   Member