Kassem and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by the applicant, Mr Kassem, for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had lodged his review application within the nine-day statutory period prescribed by section 500(6B) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant contended that the notification of the non-revocation decision was invalid, and that the placement of the review rights factsheet within the notification package prejudiced his ability to lodge the application within the time limit.

The AAT was required to determine whether the notification of the non-revocation decision was validly made to the applicant, and consequently, whether the applicant had filed his substantive application for review within the nine-day timeframe stipulated by section 500(6B) of the Act. This involved considering whether the appointment of a representative via Form 956 constituted a valid authorisation for the Department of Home Affairs to notify that representative of the decision, and whether the positioning of the AAT Information Sheet within the decision notification package rendered the notification defective.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had validly appointed legal representatives, Birchgrove Legal, who had provided an email address for communications. The non-revocation decision was sent to this nominated email address, satisfying the requirements of section 501G(3) of the Act and Regulation 5.02 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Tribunal held that the applicant's subsequent change of representation did not invalidate the initial notification. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the placement of the AAT Information Sheet, while perhaps not ideal, did not render the notification invalid, and that the applicant was responsible for ensuring his representatives met the statutory timeframes. As the application was lodged outside the nine-day period and the Tribunal had no power to extend this period, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.