Riwhi (Migration)

[2018] AATA 24

Riwhi (Migration) [2018] AATA 24 (4 January 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Rozjay William Riwhi

CASE NUMBER:  1701397

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3748736

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:4 January 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 04 January 2018 at 10:11am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa – Applicant failed to appear before the Tribunal – Notice of the dismissal decision sent by the Tribunal

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 362B(1A)(b), 362C(5)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 19 January 2017 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 13 December 2017 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.362B(1A)(b) of the Act as the review applicant did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.362C(5). The review applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4. The decision to dismiss the application was sent to the address provided by the applicant for all correspondence to be sent to him. This was the address for his agent who had since advised the Tribunal that they were no longer acting for him. No alternative address had been provided for documents to be sent to the applicant.

5. A copy of the decision was also sent to the personal email address provided by the applicant. The delivery of that email was noted to have failed. A copy of the decision and the notification letter was posted to the applicant to the Brisbane Correctional Centre. An officer from the Tribunal spoke to the applicant’s partner, however as she was not authorised to receive information on behalf of the applicant, the officer was unable to give any information directly to her and confirmed with her the documents had been sent to the Brisbane Correctional Centre.

6. No application for reinstatement or any communication from the applicant has been received by the Tribunal.

7. As the review applicant did not apply for reinstatement of the application within the 14 days period, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

   Hugh Sanderson
   Member