Kumar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 835

Kumar (Migration) [2018] AATA 835 (6 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Rajesh Kumar

CASE NUMBER:  1803081

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  Papers

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:6 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 March 2018 at 4:55pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – Application not received within required timeframe

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)(b), 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 9 January 2018 to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 6 February 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 9 January 2018 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 wrote to the applicant stating that the last day for lodging the application was 30 January 2018 and as the application was not received until 6 February 2018, it appeared to be out of time. The applicant did not respond within the requested time.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 9 January 2018: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 30 January 2018.

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

   Angela Cranston
   Member