Buppha (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1705

Buppha (Migration) [2017] AATA 1705 (9 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Suphannee Buppha

CASE NUMBER:  1713200

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1153642

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:9 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 09 August 2017 at 3:44pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Application lodged out of time

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)(b), 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, 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 10 April 2017, 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 21 June 2017.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 10 April 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

6. On 27 June  2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, at her address for service being her email address, inviting comment that the application was not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The applicant responded on 11 July 2017 advising that she did not check the timeframe and wishes to complete her studies in Australia.

7. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 10 April 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 1 May 2017. The Tribunal has considered the explanation provided by the applicant but has no discretion.

8. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 21 June 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

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

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member