Chan (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1710

Chan (Migration) [2017] AATA 1710 (8 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Ka Shing Chan
Ms Wing Ki Chu

CASE NUMBER:  1713847

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3321839

MEMBER:Rania Skaros

DATE:8 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 08 August 2017 at 11:53am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) 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 30 May 2017, to refuse to grant Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 28 June 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 30 May 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. The applicants were invited to comment on the validity of the application for review however no response has been received by the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 30 May 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 20 June 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 28 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

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

   Rania Skaros
   Member