GOPAL (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2134

GOPAL (Migration) [2017] AATA 2134 (26 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr VIKNESHWARAN GOPAL

CASE NUMBER:  1721749

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1374853

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:26 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 26 October 2017 at 5:51pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) – Subclass 500 (Student) – Notification of decision – Application made out of prescribed period

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.55, 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 14 August 2017, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 14 September 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 14 August 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 10 October 2017 the applicant was invited to comment on the validity of the application for review. On 20 October 2017 the applicant responded to the invitation and advised he had mistakenly sent the application to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection instead of the Tribunal and requested the opportunity to send it to the correct address and also asked for advice about the application fee.  

6. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with r.2.55 of the Regulations, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 14 August 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 4 September 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 14 September 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.

   Wendy Banfield
   Member