Kaur (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4603

Kaur (Migration) [2022] AATA 4603 (28 October 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Sarbjit Kaur
Mr Lovepreet Singh

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Dildeep Singh (MARN: 1281067)

CASE NUMBER:  1902656

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/4839494

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE:28 October 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 28 October 2022 at 2:28pm

CATCHWORDS  
MIGRATION – Training (Class GF) visa – Subclass 407 (Training) – non-appearance before the Tribunal – application dismissed – request for reinstatement of application declined – dismissal confirmed – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION 
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 362B, 362C

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 17 January 2019 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Training (Class GF) Subclass 407 visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 13 October 2022, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicants did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicants were 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 applicants were 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 applicants 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 19 October 2022, the Tribunal received an email from Mr Dildeep Singh at Milestone Education & Immigration Services to advise that he had been appointed as the applicant’s representative. The email further advised that the applicant wished to reinstate the matter before the Tribunal and requested that a new hearing be scheduled. No reason for the applicant’s failure to attend the original hearing was provided. Later the same day, a second email from Mr Singh advised that he would provide supporting submissions outlining the reasons for the reinstatement request before the requested date.

6. On 24 October 2022, submissions were received by the Tribunal. The cover letter advised that the applicant had received a great deal of spam messages since the data breach at Optus. The applicant was allegedly unaware of the Tribunal’s name and believed the hearing reminder text messages to be a scam and consequently ignored them. The letter outlined that the applicant is mother to a young daughter, born on 1 March 2022, and works full-time. She is under a great deal of pressure. In addition, she believed that she had hired a migration agent who would keep her updated about the application.

7. Attached to the letter was a letter of support from the applicant’s current employer, a copy of a birth certificate and passport issued to the applicant’s daughter.

8. I do not accept the above explanation as reasonable justification for failing to attend the Tribunal hearing. No evidence that the applicant is an Optus customer or that she was impacted by the data breach was supplied. Furthermore, the invitation to the Tribunal hearing was sent to the applicant’s email address prior to the text message reminders. On the day of the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal unsuccessfully called the applicant three times.

9. The applicant corresponded with the Tribunal from the nominated email address prior to the Tribunal sending the hearing invitation. This includes an email notifying the Tribunal that she had terminated the services of her representative and confirming her personal contact details on 3 September 2020.

10. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide current contact details and check her email and messages. In the circumstances, reinstatement is not considered appropriate.

11. The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. The decisions under review are taken to be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Sheridan Lee
    Member