Hundal (Migration)

[2024] AATA 2817

Hundal (Migration) [2024] AATA 2817 (24 July 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Parminder Kaur Hundal
Mr Satwinder Singh Hundal

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Robin Chohan (MARN: 2014402)

CASE NUMBER:  2412285

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/6043936

MEMBER:Rachel Da Costa

DATE:24 July 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 24 July 2024 at 12:15pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – review application lodged out of time – one day late – no discretion to extend the timeframe for lodgement – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 347, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 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 Home Affairs on 24 April 2024 to refuse to grant Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 16 May 2024. 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 reg 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 24 April 2024 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 24 April 2024: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 15 May 2024.

5. On 28 May 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants via their representative expressing the view that their application for review was not valid as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit and explaining that the time limit cannot be extended. The applicants were invited to comment in writing on the validity of their application by 11 June 2024.

6. On 11 June 2024, the Tribunal received a written response from the applicants’ representative. The response acknowledges that the application was lodged one day late and explains that the reasons for this are that the applicant had been given incorrect information by previous agents about the timeframe for review and there was a delay in the applicant receiving a transfer of funds which she needed in order to make the application for review. The letter explains that the delay was unintentional.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ response and while it is sympathetic to their situation it does not have a discretion to extend the timeframe for lodgement.

8. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 16 May 2024 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.

   Rachel Da Costa
   Member