BBQF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, identified as BBQF, for review of a visa cancellation decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The Applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, had his Bridging Visa mandatorily cancelled on 18 February 2021 due to having a substantial criminal record, specifically a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more for cultivating a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant. The cancellation decision was conveyed to the Applicant by hand at the correctional centre where he was detained. The court required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application relating to this cancellation decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the visa cancellation decision under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This question hinged on whether the Applicant had made a valid application for revocation of the cancellation decision within the prescribed timeframes. The Applicant acknowledged receiving the cancellation notice and accompanying information, including a revocation request form and instructions on making representations, on 19 February 2021. However, he had not yet lodged any representations seeking revocation of the cancellation decision.

The court reasoned that the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) stipulated that representations for revocation of a cancellation decision must be received by the Department within 28 days of the applicant being taken to have received the notice. As the notice was delivered by hand, the Applicant was deemed to have received it on 19 February 2021. The Applicant’s stated reasons for not making representations, including limited English and not knowing what to do, did not constitute grounds for extending the time limit for making such representations, as there was no discretion to do so under the relevant regulations. Consequently, as no representations were made within the required timeframe, there was no reviewable decision before the court. The application was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.