Deenalatha (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1707

Deenalatha (Migration) [2017] AATA 1707 (18 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Kernabalan Deenalatha

CASE NUMBER:  1713436

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1005250

MEMBER:Alison Mercer

DATE:18 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 18 July 2017 at 10:56am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) 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 26 May 2017, to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 23 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 26 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. On 30 June 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to invite her to comment on the fact that a Tribunal officer had formed a preliminary view that her review application had not been validly lodged as it was lodged outside the prescribed timeframe. The letter advised that the time limit was 21 days from the date on which the applicant was taken to be notified of the Department decision, which in the applicant’s case was 26 May 2017 as this was the date that the decision record was emailed to her nominated email address by the Department.  The 21 day timeframe for lodgment of the review application ended on 16 June 2017, but the applicant’s review application was lodged on 23 June 2017.  The applicant was given until 14 July 2017 to provide any comments or response to the issue of the validity of her review application, and was advised that any response received would be referred to a Tribunal Member who would ultimately determine whether the review application had been validly made.

6. The Tribunal did not receive any comments or response from the applicant by the due date. It has received no further communication from her to the date of this decision (18 July 2017).

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 26 May 2017. Therefore, the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 16 June 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 23 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

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

   Alison Mercer
   Member