1613659 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4627

1613659 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4627 (4 November 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Thermec Mechanical Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1613659

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1492919

MEMBER:Rania Skaros

DATE:4 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 November 2016 at 1:04pm

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 15 July 2016, to refuse to approve the applicant as a standard business sponsor under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 26 August 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 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 15 July 2016 and sent by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. The Tribunal formed the preliminary view that the application for review was out of time and on 27 September 2016 invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review. The response was due on 11 October 2016. On 27 September 2016 the Tribunal received a phone call from Michael from the applicant’s office confirming that the invitation to comment had been received and explained that they had never received the Department’s request for further information an only received the notification letter weeks later. The Tribunal officer advised the applicant was required to apply for review within 21 days of the notification of the decision. Although Michael indicated that they would be responding by letter, to date the Tribunal has not received a response.

6. The Tribunal has had regard to all of the information before it however it has no discretion to extend the period of time within which an application for review can be made.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant has been properly notified by email and is therefore taken to have been notified of the decision on 15 July 2016. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 5 August 2016. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 26 August 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

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

   Rania Skaros
   Member