Rupasinghe Karunarathna (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3725

Rupasinghe Karunarathna (Migration) [2024] AATA 3725 (3 October 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Yashen Vishwa Rupasinghe Karunarathna

CASE NUMBER:  2424263

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/7547483

MEMBER:Jason Cabarrús

DATE:3 October 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 03 October 2024 at 12:09pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – application for review made more than 21 days after notification of visa refusal decision – grandmother’s health and genuine wish to study – no discretion to extend time – no 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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 June 2024 to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 July 2024. For the following reasons, I have found that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. Pursuant to s 347(1)(b) of the Act and reg 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 19 June 2024 and dispatched by email. I am satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements. I find that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 19 June 2024: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 10 July 2024.

4. The applicant has provided submissions explaining that the delay in lodging the review application was due to unforeseen circumstances relating to his grandmother’s deteriorating health, and also provided medical evidence about this; and he has also submitted that he genuinely wishes to study and explained the reasons for this. Unfortunately for the applicant, these matters are not relevant to the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review this decision, because the legislation requires the application to be made within the specified timeframe and does not provide any discretion to extend the time for applying for review of a decision of this kind.

5. As the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 10 July 2024, and the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 22 July 2024, 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

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

   Jason Cabarrús
   Member