2109918 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa to a Malaysian citizen. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia on a visitor visa that subsequently ceased, applied for a protection visa and was granted a bridging visa. He was notified of the refusal decision on 1 June 2021. The applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 4 August 2021, after his bridging visa had ceased.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review the refusal decision, given that the application for review was lodged outside the prescribed timeframe. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had been notified of the refusal decision in accordance with statutory requirements and, if so, whether the application for review was made within the time limit stipulated by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal reasoned that, as the applicant was not in immigration detention when notified of the decision, he was required to lodge his review application within 28 days of being notified, pursuant to r.4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was notified of the refusal decision by letter dated 1 June 2021, dispatched by email, and that this constituted notification in accordance with statutory requirements under s.494C of the Migration Act 1958. Consequently, the prescribed period for lodging the review application expired on 28 June 2021. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant's circumstances, such as limited internet access due to farm work, were regrettable, they did not alter the fact that he was notified according to the law. The Tribunal affirmed that it lacked the power to extend time for an invalid review application, citing *Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2018] FCAFC 228.

As the application for review was received by the Tribunal on 4 August 2021, which was beyond the statutory deadline, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.