SINGH (Migration)

[2018] AATA 281

SINGH (Migration) [2018] AATA 281 (31 January 2018)

CORRIGENDUM

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr SUMEET SINGH

CASE NUMBER:  1704726

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/402520

MEMBER:Tigiilagi Eteuati

DATE OF DECISION:  31 January 2018

DATE CORRIGENDUM

SIGNED:19 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision: In one instance the date 31 January 2017 should be replaced with the date 31 January 2018.

Tigiilagi Eteuati
Member

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr SUMEET SINGH

CASE NUMBER:  1704726

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/402520

MEMBER:Tigiilagi Eteuati

DATE:31 January 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 31 January 2018 at 11:21am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Cancellation – Applicant did not appear before the Tribunal – Dismissed – Sought application to be reinstated

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 362B, 362C

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 6 March 2017 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 15 January 2018 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 review applicant applied for reinstatement of the application within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

5. On 30 January 2018, the last day on which the applicant could seek reinstatement, the Tribunal received the following email from the same email address to which the hearing invitation and the initial dismissal decision had been sent:

   “I wish to inform that i am having finacial crisis currrently, due to which i do not use any internet services but rather just a prepaid service to receive and make outgoing calls. I rarely check emails which i did co-incidently on my friend's phone and i got to know about your email.I havent worked since i applied my MRT which is why i am struggling to survive and was expecting a positive outcome to re-start my life in australia and get back on track.Now i am in Melbourne which i updated the department because i have my cousin in Melbourne to receive finacial support but it's my mistake when i update my changing to address to Melbourne i need to pay aat fee again here i try to focus on the things but can't.

   i need one chance to explain myself and i unable to go to brisbane can i find another way to explain in front of respective Judge in the Melbourne that will help much .i hope My request will be accepted thanks”

6. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had a financial crises which prevented him from receiving and accessing emails from the Tribunal. The applicant has provided no evidence of this and it clearly did not prevent him from applying for his application to be reinstated. Even if I did accept that the applicant did not have access to his email from his own phone or computer, and could not access the internet including through the various free services available, for example at public libraries, he could have used his friend’s or cousin’s phones or internet services to access his email. The applicant made an application to the Tribunal and it was his responsibility to monitor his mail and email to ensure that he received correspondence from the Tribunal. His failure attend the hearing or to monitor his email was his choice and the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

7. The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

   DECISION

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

   Tigiilagi Eteuati
   Member