PALANCHOKE (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1125

PALANCHOKE (Migration) [2018] AATA 1125 (19 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Aruna PALANCHOKE
Mr Sanju Shrestha
Master Aaron Shrestha

CASE NUMBER:  1808502

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1491926

MEMBER:M. Edgoose

DATE:19 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne, Victoria

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

Statement made on 19 April 2018 at 9:07am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – practice and Procedure – Application for review out of time – Invalid application

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, r 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 20 February 2018 to refuse to grant Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 27 March 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 21 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 20 February 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 finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 20 February 2018: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 13 March 2018.

5. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 27 March 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

6. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   M. Edgoose
   Member