Ahamdi (Migration)

[2024] AATA 4060

Ahamdi (Migration) [2024] AATA 4060 (8 October 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Soudabeh Ahmadi

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Seyed Mohammad Ahmadi

CASE NUMBER:  2419177

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/291340

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:8 October 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 October 2024 at 1:40pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – review application out of time – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.10

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 February 2024 to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA Sponsored Family) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 24 June 2024. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. Pursuant to s 347(1)(b) of the Act and reg 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) an application for review of this decision had to be made within 70 days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 26 February 2024 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 26 February 2024: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 6 May 2024.

5. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 24 June 2024 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.

6. By letter dated 5 September 2024, the Tribunal put to the review applicant that the review application appeared to have been made outside the requisite period.   By email dated 5 September 2024 the review applicant acknowledged that the application was not made within the requisite period.   The review applicant said that she mistakenly believed the time frame was based on working days not calendar days and an unexpected business trip also delayed making the application.  The review applicant made a similar submission by email dated 24 June 2024 when the review application was lodged.  In that email she requested an extension of time acknowledging the deadline for submission had passed. 

7. The review application must be made within the prescribed period.  As stated above, this review application was made outside that period.  Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application.  

   DECISION

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

   Paul Millar
   Member