CAO (Migration)

[2018] AATA 4832

CAO (Migration) [2018] AATA 4832 (21 December 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms YANTING CAO

CASE NUMBER:  1828478

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/353200

MEMBER:Mark O'Loughlin

DATE:21 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 21 December 2018 at 10:48am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector – review application out of time – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 347, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 2.55; 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 7 September 2018 to cancel the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 28 September 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 7 working days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 7 September 2018 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. In a statement subsequently provided to this Tribunal the applicant confirmed that she received the decision on 7 September 2018.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 7 September 2018: r.2.55 of the Regulations. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 18 September 2018.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 28 September it 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.

   Mark O'Loughlin
   Member