Salue (Migration)

[2018] AATA 834

Salue (Migration) [2018] AATA 834 (23 March 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Peter Salue

CASE NUMBER:  1806795

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  MAG-000288774/18(9)

MEMBER:Tigiilagi Eteuati

DATE:23 March 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 23 March 2018 at 5:27pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) – Subclass 444 (Special category) – Incorrect applicant – Tribunal fee unpaid

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 347
Migration Regulations 1994 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 Immigration on 13 February 2018 to cancel Mr Peter Salue’s (the applicant) Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 14 March 2018. 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 7 working 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 13 February 2018 and dispatched by hand. 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 13 February 2018. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 22 February 2018.

5. An application for review of the cancellation decision was purportedly made by a Ms Cherie Ngaha on 22 February 2018. However, the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was made by Ms Ngaha and not by the applicant, as required for a valid application for review to be made: s.347(2)(a). The Tribunal also found that it did not have jurisdiction with regard to Ms Ngaha’s application as she had not paid the required application fee within the required time.

6. As this application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 14 March 2018 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.

   Tigiilagi Eteuati
   Member