BRAR (Migration)

[2017] AATA 3169

BRAR (Migration) [2017] AATA 3169 (2 February 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr BHAGWAN SINGH BRAR

CASE NUMBER:  1700232

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3106545

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:2 February 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 02 February 2017 at 1:28pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (class TU) – subclass 500 (Student) – application made out of time – invalid application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 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 6 December 2016, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 5 January 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. 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 applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 6 December 2016 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 6 December 2016. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 30 December 2016.

6. On 17 January 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting comment that the application was not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The applicant responded on 28 January 2017 stating that he could not arrange the fees and his migration agent misinformed him of the date.

7. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 5 January 2017, 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

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

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member