Manghihilot (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a migration matter concerning an applicant for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The applicant had paid only half of the prescribed fee with their visa application. Despite requests for a fee reduction being refused, the applicant was granted two extensions of time to pay the outstanding balance. However, the remainder of the fee was not paid, and the applicant did not respond to an invitation to comment.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to consider the applicant's case, specifically in light of the Department's notification regarding the primary decision. The Tribunal was required to determine if the notification provided by the Department was valid and if the prescribed period for making a review application had commenced.

The Tribunal found that the Department's notification letter was deficient because it failed to state the time within which an application for review could be made, as required by sections 494D(1) and 494D(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the notification did not explain that the time period is calculated from when the applicant's authorised recipient is taken to have received the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant had not been validly notified of the primary decision, and therefore, the prescribed period for lodging a review application had not started to run. The Tribunal relied on the principles established in *Sandor v MICMA* [2023] FCA 434.

As a result of the invalid notification, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The Tribunal noted that if the Department were to issue a valid notification, the prescribed period would commence, and any subsequent application would need to be lodged within that timeframe.