Changjutturas (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2223

Changjutturas (Migration) [2018] AATA 2223 (14 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Chatpong Changjutturas
Mrs Ploychan Pakdeeglang

CASE NUMBER:  1810518

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/4892260

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:14 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 May 2018 at 6:33pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Review application out of time

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347
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 23 March 2018 to refuse to grant Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 14 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 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 23 March 2018 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 27 April 2018 inviting him to comment on the validity of the application for review. He was advised to respond in writing by 11 May 2018 after which a decision would be made on his application. On 11 May 2018 the applicant submitted a written statement, two sick leave certificates and a letter from a psychologist. The applicant explained the circumstances that led to his application for review being submitted outside the prescribed period. This included his failure to locate a Departmental request for further information, and the delegate’s subsequent decision to refuse the application in his email inbox. The applicant stated that when he submitted the application for review he believed it was still within the 20 day lodgement period. Unfortunately this was not the case.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 23 March 2018: r.2.55 of the Regulations. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 13 April 2018.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 14 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.

   Wendy Banfield
   Member