Innovation Group (AUST) PTY LTD (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2518

Innovation Group (AUST) PTY LTD (Migration) [2017] AATA 2518 (3 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Innovation Group (AUST) PTY LTD

CASE NUMBER:  1512645

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2001210

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:3 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 3 July 2017 at 2:42pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Nomination – Application dismissed – Review Applicant appealed – Authorised representative failed to attend hearing

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 65, 140GB, 362B(1A)(b) , 362B(1F), 362B(1C) , 362C(5)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to approve a nomination under s.140GB of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 1 June 2017 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicant did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.362C(5). The review applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4. The review applicant applied for reinstatement of the application within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

5. On 2 June 2017, the applicant’s representative made a request to have the review application reinstated; submitting that the ‘client has no visa to stay on Australia and that he would like to know whether you can do the telephone interview’.

6. The review applicant in these proceeding is Innovation Group (AUST) Pty Ltd. Their authorised representative was invited to attend the hearing on 1 June 2017. He has failed to contact the tribunal prior to the scheduled hearing dated or request that the hearing is conducted by telephone conferencing.

7. The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence before it, and makes the following findings:

   ·It is satisfied that the hearing invitation sent to the applicant on 24 March 2017 complied with the relevant statutory requirements;

   ·It is satisfied that the applicant’s representative received the invitation. The tribunal’s records indicate that the invitation was successfully transmitted to the applicant’s nominated email address;

   ·The Tribunal notes that the letter of 24 March 2017 specifically contains the following advice: ‘If you are not able to participate in this hearing you should advise us as soon as possible.  Please note that we will only change this date if satisfied that you have a very good reason for being granted an adjournment.  If we do not advise you that an adjournment has been granted, you must assume the hearing will go ahead.  If you do not attend the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable you to appear before us or may dismiss the application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before us;’

   ·The hearing invitation sent requested the applicant to confirm within 7 days whether he would attend the hearing or not. The applicant has failed to do so;

   ·The applicant did not request the hearing postponement or requested that the hearing be conducted by telephone conferencing.

   ·The notification that his application had been dismissed was e-mailed to the same e-mail address as the hearing invitation letter.

8. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was validly notified of the hearing on 1 June 2017 and was aware of the time and date of the hearing.  The Tribunal considers that he has not provided reasonable explanation for his failure to appear, or seek an adjournment. The hearing invitation clearly stated that the Tribunal might dismiss the application if he did not attend the scheduled hearing.

9. The Tribunal is satisfied that s.362B(1C) allows the Tribunal to reinstate the review application if ‘it considers it appropriate to do so.’  Having carefully considered the applicant’s request, and the circumstances surrounding his application and his non-appearance, as far as they can be ascertained, and for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is appropriate to reinstate the application.

10. Accordingly, the decision to dismiss the application is confirmed and it follows that the decision under review is taken to be affirmed pursuant to s.362B(1F).

    DECISION

11. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

    Antonio Dronjic
    Member