RANA (Migration)

[2017] AATA 3158

RANA (Migration) [2017] AATA 3158 (6 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr KAMAL RANA

CASE NUMBER:  1719789

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2637625 BCC2017/2637626 PNJ

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:6 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 October 2017 at 4:31pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – Application lodged outside of required timeframe – Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b), 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 27 July 2017, to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 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. On 18 September 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited his comments on the issue of the validity of the review application.  The applicant was informed that the primary decision was emailed to him on 27 July 2017, and on this basis he was taken to have been notified of the decision on that date, and the last day for lodging the application for review was 21 days after this date, being 17 August 2017.  As the application for review was not received until 29 August 2017 it is out of time.  He was invited to make comments on this issue by 3 October 2017. The Tribunal’s invitation was sent to the applicant to the email address provided by him in his application for review form.  On 27 September 2017 the applicant contacted the Tribunal enquiring about his application. When informed about the invitation to comment sent to him, he acknowledged that he had provided an incorrect email address. The Tribunal resent the invitation to the applicant at the correct email address provided by him on 27 September 2017, reminding him that he had until 3 October 2017 to respond.  To date the Tribunal has received no response from the applicant.  

5. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 27 July 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

6. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with s.494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 27 July 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 17 August 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 29 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

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

   Meena Sripathy
   Member