Nguyen (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1951

Nguyen (Migration) [2018] AATA 1951 (27 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Duy Luan Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  1810885

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/151209 PNJ

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:27 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 April 2018 at 3:16pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Review application out of time

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 347

Migration Regulations 1994, rr 2.55, 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 5 April 2018 to cancel the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 17 April 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 7 working 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 5 April 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 seeking his comments or response to the initial view of the Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction because he applied out of time. The applicant responded that he had believed he had until 17/04 by mistake and because of financial pressures had left it until that day to apply for review.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 5 April 2018: r.2.55 of the Regulations. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 16 April 2018.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 17 April 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.

   Sean Baker
   Member