Le (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review concerning a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)). The applicant sought review of a decision relating to their visa application, which was lodged outside the prescribed time limit. The applicant alleged negligence on the part of their migration agent as the reason for the late lodgement.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to consider the review application, given that it was lodged out of time. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the provisions allowing for extensions of time under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) applied to review applications made to the Migration Review Division (MRD) of the Tribunal. The applicant argued that special circumstances, including the alleged negligence of their migration agent, constituted a "great injustice and lack of procedural fairness" that should permit the Tribunal to entertain the late application, citing *Brown & Minister for Home Affairs (No2) [2018] FCA 1787*.

The Tribunal referred to section 24Z of the AAT Act, which states that Part IV of the Act does not apply to Part V Reviews under the Migration Act. It further relied on the Full Federal Court's decision in *Beni v MIBP [2018] FCAFC 228*. In *Beni*, the Full Federal Court held that sections 29(7)-(10) of the AAT Act, which grant power to extend time limits in other divisions of the Tribunal, do not apply to the MRD. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the power to extend the time limit for making a review application in this instance. As the review application was lodged outside the relevant prescribed period, the Tribunal determined it did not have jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the requirements for the standard business sponsor stream had not been met. No claims were made regarding other streams under clause 457.223, and there was no evidence that the visa applicant could satisfy the specific criteria for those streams. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter.