1611030 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4355

1611030 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4355 (9 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  iStudyOz Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1611030

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2991043

MEMBER:Katie Malyon

DATE:9 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 09 September 2016 at 11:53am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 27 June 2016, to refuse a nomination application made by iStudyOz Pty Ltd (the Company) under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 20 July 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 21 days after the Company was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. Material before the Tribunal indicates that the Company was notified of the delegate’s decision by letter dated 27 June 2016 dispatched by email to the Company’s registered migration agent.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the Company was notified of the delegate’s decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. The Tribunal formed the preliminary view that the delegate’s decision is not reviewable because the review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 20 July 2016.  On 26 August 2016 the Company responded to the Tribunal’s invitation to comment on the validity of its application for review.  Mr Khampon Tonglai, on behalf of the Company, acknowledged he did not know the timeframe of lodgement within 21 days included weekends: he thought, the 21 days referred to business days only.

6. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the Company is taken to have been notified of the decision on 27 June 2016. Therefore, the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 18 July 2016. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 20 July 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.

   Katie Malyon

   
   Member