Raman (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1332

Raman (Migration) [2021] AATA 1332 (12 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Periasamy Raman

CASE NUMBER:  2014385

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2017/26979 PNJ

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:12 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 12 March 2021 at 1:11pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa – was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements – application was lodged outside of the relevant prescribed period– application fee had not been paid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)(b), 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.01

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 2 September 2020 to refuse to grant a Bridging A (Class WA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 23 September 2020. 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 2 September 2020 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 2 September 2020: s.494C of the Act, therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 23 September 2020.

5. For an application to be valid it must be accompanied by the relevant fee for the review. The fee did not accompany the application received on 23 September 2020.

6. On 29 October 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising it believed his application was not valid as it had not been accompanied by payment which was not received on 23 September 2020 and inviting his comment.

7. He responded that payment was late due to his lack of English which resulted in his not knowing what was required. He was out of work because of Covid 19 and had to borrow money from friends. The Tribunal does not believe this is a satisfactory explanation of why the payment was not made on time.

8. As the payment was not received by the Tribunal by 23 September 2020 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.

   Tim Connellan
   Member