Bhullar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2389

Bhullar (Migration) [2018] AATA 2389 (21 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Sukhwinder Singh Bhullar
Ms Ramandeep Kaur Bhullar

CASE NUMBER:  1811798

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/4350994 PNJ

MEMBER:Mary Sheargold

DATE:21 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 21 May 2018 at 5:18pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – Review application out of time

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 Immigration on 29 March 2018 to refuse to grant Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 25 April 2018. 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 21 days after the applicants were notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicants were notified of the decision by letter dated 29 March 2018 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants were notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The Tribunal finds that the applicants are taken to have been notified of the decision on 29 March 2018: s.494C(5) of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 19 April 2018.

5. On 3 May 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants stating that the review applications may not be valid as they were not received by the Tribunal until 25 April 2018, but that this would be determined by a Member of the Tribunal.  The applicants were invited to provide any response to this to the Tribunal by no later than 17 May 2018.  At the time this decision was made, the Tribunal has not received any comments from the applicants in response to the 3 May 2018 letter.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 25 April 2018 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

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

   Mary Sheargold
   Member