Joonas (Migration)

[2018] AATA 899

Joonas (Migration) [2018] AATA 899 (16 February 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Karl Joonas

CASE NUMBER:  1800303

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3546638

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:16 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 16 February 2018 at 12:26pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) – Subclass 461 (Family Relationship) (Temporary) – Application out of time – Not made in accordance with the relevant legislation

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 8 December 2017 to refuse to grant a New Zealand Citizen (Family Relationship) (Temporary) (Class UP) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 4 January 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 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 8 December 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. In a submission dated 1 February 2018 the review applicant has acknowledged receipt of the decision on 8 December 2017.  

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 8 December 2017 (s.494C of the Act). Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 29 December 2017.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 4 January 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

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

   Moira Brophy
   Member