HAMMOND (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1610

HAMMOND (Migration) [2018] AATA 1610 (10 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms MAAME ESI HAMMOND

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr FRANK BOATENG

CASE NUMBER:  1803313

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/242539

MEMBER:Meredith Jackson

DATE:10 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 10 April 2018 at 4:32pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – Review application out of time

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, r 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 29 November 2017 to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 8 February 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 70 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 29 November 2017 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 finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 29 November 2017: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 7 February 2018.

5. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 8 February 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

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