Harpreet Singh (Migration)

[2020] AATA 857

Harpreet Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 857 (16 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr  Harpreet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1929704

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/883750

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:16 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 March 2020 at 5:11pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – application for review lodged out of time – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 25 September 2019 to refuse to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 19 October 2019. 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 25 September 2019 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. On 12 November 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on the validity of the application which appeared to have been lodged out of time.

5. On 25 November 2019 the Tribunal received a response from the employer Mr Harry Batra in which he stated the delay in lodging the application was not intentional and he requested the Tribunal to consider his poor health and financial circumstances.

6. On 26 November 2019 the Tribunal received a response from Mr Singh the review applicant who advised the visa refusal had caused him mental and financial stress. He said he had been trying to support his boss Harry Batra who had been unwell and had failed to lodge the application on time, and he was unsure of what action to take.

7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 25 September 2019: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 16 October 2019.

8. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 19 October 2019 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

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

   Tim Connellan
   Member