Nguyen and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant contended that she had not been effectively served with the notice of this decision, meaning the time limit for lodging an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not commenced. The Minister argued that service had been effected on the Applicant's authorised migration agent, and therefore the application was lodged out of time, rendering the decision unreviewable by the Tribunal. The case was heard by Deputy Boyle P.

The central legal issue before the court was whether service of the notice of the non-revocation decision on the Applicant's migration agent constituted effective service on the Applicant herself, for the purposes of triggering the time limit for seeking review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This required an interpretation of sections 500(6B), 501G(1), and 494D of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and regulation 2.55 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Deputy Boyle P determined that the Applicant had effectively appointed her migration agent, Mr Nguyen, to assist with the visa cancellation revocation process, as evidenced by the completed Form 956 submitted to the Department. The court reasoned that section 494D of the *Migration Act* permits service of documents on an authorised recipient, and that this provision is not inconsistent with sections 501G(3) and regulation 2.55, which prescribe the mechanics of service. The court found that the Applicant's argument that she had to be served "personally" was erroneous and ignored the purpose and wording of section 494D(2), which states that service on an authorised recipient is taken to be service on the person. Consequently, the Applicant was deemed to have been notified of the decision on 23 November 2021 when her agent received the notice.

As the application for review was lodged on 13 December 2021, which was outside the nine-day time limit stipulated by section 500(6B) of the *Migration Act*, and the Tribunal has no power to extend this time for decisions under section 501CA(4), the application was dismissed. The decision was therefore not reviewable by the Tribunal.