1800958 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a visa cancellation decision. The applicant sought to challenge the cancellation of their Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's application for review had been lodged within the prescribed time limits, which in turn depended on the proper notification of the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was formally and compliantly notified of the visa cancellation decision, and specifically, whether the applicant was in immigration detention at the time of notification. This involved considering the definition of detention under the Act and whether the notification complied with the requirements of section 127(2)(c)(iii) of the Act and regulation 2.45, particularly concerning the clarity of the timeframes for lodging a review application. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had a representative at the time of the cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was in immigration detention on the date of the cancellation notification, based on evidence that the applicant was detained at a police station and exhibited an agitated state, suggesting a reasonable suspicion by the officer that the applicant would not cooperate with inquiries. This detention meant that the cancellation decision was reviewable under section 338(4) of the Act, and the applicant had two working days to apply for review. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant did not have an authorised representative at the relevant times, meaning notices were required to be sent directly to the applicant.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the application for review was received on 12 January 2018, which was outside the two-working-day timeframe. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.