MU (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1881

MU (Migration) [2017] AATA 1881 (12 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms DAN MU

CASE NUMBER:  1722507

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2153663 PNJ

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:12 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 October 2017 at 1:41pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Notification of decision – Application made out of time

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.55, 4.10

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 28 August 2017, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 20 September 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. 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.

4. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 28 August 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. On 26 September 2017 the applicant was invited to comment on the validity of the application for review. The applicant was advised that a response to the Tribunal’s letter was required by 10 October 2017. On 9 October 2017 the applicant responded to the invitation and declared she had been unwell for 5 days between 15 and 19 September which was the main reason for her late application. Ms Mu also stated it took her some time to understand the Tribunal process and as a result, she had submitted her application for review 2 days after the due date. The applicant acknowledged she had received the decision notification.

6. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with r.2.55 of the Regulations, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 28 August 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 18 September 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 20 September 2017 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.

   Wendy Banfield
   Member