Parajum (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1869

Parajum (Migration) [2017] AATA 1869 (6 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Tisanamatee Parajum

CASE NUMBER:  1718484

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1242871

MEMBER:Adrienne Millbank

DATE:6 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 06 October 2017 at 2:40pm

CATCHWORD

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

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C

Migrations Regulation 1994, Schedule 2  

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 18 July 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 18 August 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 18 July 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 4 September 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant stating that it was the Tribunal’s view that the application was not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make any comment, in writing, by 18 September 2017, as to whether a valid application had been made.

6. On 18 September 2017 the applicant provided a written submission to the Tribunal in which she argued that her husband in Thailand supported her decision to extend her studies; that her mother-in-law would be her sponsor; that she fully intends to return to Thailand on completion of her studies; and that she was nervous when she sat for her IELTS test.

7. No comment was provided by the applicant regarding the validity of the application for review.

8. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 18 July 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 8 August 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 18 August 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

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

   Adrienne Millbank
   Member