Aryal (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6927

Aryal (Migration) [2019] AATA 6927 (3 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Dev Prasad Aryal
Mrs Sapana Panta Aryal

CASE NUMBER:  1815674

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/1557312

MEMBER:M. Edgoose

DATE:3 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne, Victoria

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 03 April 2019 at 9:02am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 – no appearance at hearing by applicants – application for review dismissed – application for reinstatement – technical difficulties with applicants’ telephone on day of hearing – not appropriate to reinstate application – dismissal of review application confirmed – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 362(1A)(b), 362C(5)

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 24 May 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 500 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 18 March 2019 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicants did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicants were notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.362C(5). The review applicants were advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4. The review applicants applied for reinstatement of the application within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

5. The Tribunal received an email from the review applicant’s agent on 28 March 2019 seeking reinstatement of the hearing. The email stated that the applicant “We were instructed that the applicant was invited to a hearing via telephone; however, on the day of his hearing he was able to answer his telephone due to technical difficulties”.  The Tribunal does not accept the review applicant’s reason as to why the phone calls were not answered due to technical difficulties. The applicant made no attempt to contact the Tribunal on the day of the hearing with an alternative number.

6. On the day of the hearing before and after the scheduled time of the hearing the Tribunal Hearing Attendant attempted to contact the review applicant on three occasions via the telephone number supplied, [number], by the review applicant. The review applicant did not answer the phone on the first attempt at 12:19pm (VIC time), the second attempt at 12:26pm (VIC time) and the third attempt at 13:58pm (VIC time). After the third attempt at 13:58pm (VIC time) the Tribunal Member dismissed the hearing.

7. The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decisions under review are taken to be affirmed.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

   M. Edgoose
   Member