Chin (Migration)

[2018] AATA 901

Chin (Migration) [2018] AATA 901 (16 February 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Luke Lawrence Chin

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Emmanuel Aureus Silvino

CASE NUMBER:  1716113

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2119683

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:16 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 16 February 2018 at 1:09pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) – Subclass 600 – Did not appear before the Tribunal – Applied for reinstatement of the application – Did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 362B, 362C

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 18 July 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Visitor (Class FA) Subclass 600 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 24 January 2018 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicant did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.362C(5). The review applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4. The review applicant applied for reinstatement of the application within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

5. The agent for the review applicant submitted the review applicant “ is frail and at the time of being contacted did not respond.” A search of the Tribunal records show the review applicant was advised of the hearing by email sent to his migration agent on 20 December 2017. There was no contact from the agent to advise that the review applicant was not able to be contacted or that the migration agent was not able to attend the hearing. The Tribunal had not received any communication from the review applicant or his migration agent since 27 July 2017.

6. In that context the Tribunal does not find there are reasons that would persuade the Tribunal that it was appropriate to reinstate the proceedings.

7. The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

   Moira Brophy
   Member