Singh (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2947

Singh (Migration) [2018] AATA 2947 (26 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Surinder Pal Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1815829

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3706808

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:26 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 26 June 2018 at 1:30pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme – review application out of time – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C
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 4 May 2018 to refuse to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 May 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 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 4 May 2018 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal has checked the Department’s records which confirm that the notification was sent to the email address provided by the applicant for correspondence. 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 4 May 2018: s.494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 25 May 2018.

5. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting his comments on its preliminary view that the review application was lodged out of time and therefore not valid. The applicant responded and stated that he thought he had 28 days to lodge an application for review because the Department generally gives 28 days to take action on issues. The Tribunal has considered this but notes the notification correctly advised the applicant that his application for review must be lodged within 21 calendar days.

6. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 30 May 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.

   Denise Connolly
   Member