Ram (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1766

Ram (Migration) [2017] AATA 1766 (6 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Bipinkumar Menshibhai Ram

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs DAXABEN BIPINKUMAR RAM

CASE NUMBER:  1716687

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1486869 OSF2016/049364

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:6 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 September 2017 at 4:17pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Spouse (Provisional)) – No standing for original Review Applicant – Subsequent review application out of time

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 65, 347(1)(b)

Migration Regulation 1994, r 2.55, r 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 25 May 2017, to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 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 25 May 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 31 July 2017 an application for review was lodged in this case. However, the application was not made by a person with standing to apply. The Tribunal contacted the visa applicant on by email on 4 August and 9 August 2017. The sponsor was also contacted by telephone on 8 August 2017. An amended application form was received on 11 August 2017.

6. On 15 August 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting comment on the validity of the application for review in writing by 29 August 2017. On 17 August 2017 the visa applicant replied by email advising that the sponsor had posted the M1 form to the Tribunal’s address on 9 August 2017 and stating she would apply online again if required.

7. 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 25 May 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 3 August 2017. As the application for review (by the correct person with standing) was not received by the Tribunal until 11 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

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

   Wendy Banfield
   Member