Asset Reliability Inspections Pty Ltd (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1915

Asset Reliability Inspections Pty Ltd (Migration) [2021] AATA 1915 (11 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Asset Reliability Inspections Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  2103544

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2020/1318399

MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa

DATE:11 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 June 2021 at 1.51pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – application for review lodged out of time – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 347, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.10

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 25 February 2021, refusing a nomination application by the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 19 March 2021. 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 r.4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (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 25 February 2021 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. On 22 March 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, inviting it to comment (in writing) on the information that the review application made by the applicant was not a valid one as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The Tribunal noted that the time limit was 21 days from the day on which the applicant was taken to have been notified of the primary decision.  The primary decision was emailed to the applicant’s authorised recipient on 25 February 2021 and on that basis, 25 February 2021 was the date on which the applicant was taken to have been notified and the last day for lodging the application for review was 18 March 2021.  The Tribunal advised the applicant that as the review application was not received until 19 March 2021, it was out of time.

5. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide any comments by 6 April 2021.

6. The applicant did not provide any response to the Tribunal’s invitation by 6 April 2021 or at all.  The Tribunal  is satisfied that the applicant has been given sufficient opportunity to provide information to the Tribunal regarding its review application and considers that it should proceed to make a decision in the matter without giving the applicant any further opportunity to provide information.

7. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the Tribunal did not proceed to make a decision in the matter.

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 25 February 2021: s.494C of the Act.  Therefore, the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 18 March 2021.

9. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 19 March 2021 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

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

    Amanda Mendes Da Costa
    Member