Setto and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, an Iraqi national, for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his visa under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Applicant had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) had previously found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision, and the Applicant's application was subsequently dismissed pursuant to s 42A(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The proceedings before the Tribunal involved written submissions from both parties regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa pursuant to s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act*. This question arose in circumstances where the Applicant had been notified of the visa cancellation and invited to make representations for its revocation within a strict 28-day timeframe, as stipulated by Regulation 2.52(2) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The notification letter explicitly stated that this timeframe could not be extended and that representations received outside this period would not be considered.

The Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision. Its reasoning was based on the clear terms of the notification provided to the Applicant, which invited representations for revocation under s 501CA(4) of the Act, subject to the strict 28-day timeframe. The Tribunal concluded that because the Applicant's representations, if any, were not made within this prescribed period, they were not made "in accordance with the invitation" as required by s 501CA(4)(a). Consequently, the Tribunal found it lacked the power to consider the merits of the Applicant's case for revocation, leading to the dismissal of the application.