BHRR and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant, an Afghan citizen, argued that he had not been lawfully notified of the refusal decision, and therefore, a fresh notification was required, which would allow him to lodge a timely application for review by the Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the notice of the refusal decision had been given to the applicant in the "prescribed manner" as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The central legal issue was whether the notification of the refusal to revoke the visa cancellation was provided in accordance with the requirements of the *Migration Act* and *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the method of delivery of the notice constituted notification in the "prescribed manner," which would trigger the strict time limit for lodging an application for review. The applicant contended that the procedure followed was not compliant, thereby invalidating the notification and extending the time for him to seek review.

The Tribunal found that the notice of the refusal decision was given in the prescribed manner. It applied regulation 2.55 of the *Migration Regulations*, which outlines various methods for providing notice, including by post. The Tribunal was persuaded that the procedure followed for posting the notice met the regulatory requirements, and therefore, the applicant was taken to have been notified of the decision within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the applicant's application for review was lodged out of time, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it.