Singh (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1717

Singh (Migration) [2017] AATA 1717 (20 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Harminder Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1714639

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1090420

MEMBER:Danica Buljan

DATE:20 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 July 2017 at 10:04am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa – Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme – Delay in review application lodgement

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994, r.4.10

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. An application has been lodged for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 14 June 2017, to refuse to grant a Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) visa under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 July 2017. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to paragraph 347(1)(b) of the Act and regulation 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.

4. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 14 June 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. On 13 July 2017 the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment upon the fact that his application for review application was not lodged within the prescribed period and that, therefore, his application appeared not to be a valid application for review. The applicant was invited to provide his comments to the Tribunal within 14 days of receiving this letter, namely, by 27 July 2017.

6. The applicant responded to this invitation on 14 July 2017. He explained that he had relied upon advice a friend had given him about the lodgment of application for review in relation to Protection visa applications that there was no application fee associated with his application for review. The applicant stated that, although he subsequently paid the required fee once advised by the Tribunal to do so, this had caused the delay in the lodgment in his application for review. As a result, the applicant requested that the Tribunal accept his apology for the late lodgment of his application for review and accept it as a valid application.

7. The Tribunal finds that in accordance with section 494C of the Act, the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 14 June 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 5 July 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 7 July 2017, after the prescribed period had expired. 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.

8. Although the Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant's explanation as to why his application was lodged outside of the prescribed period, the Tribunal does not have any discretion to extend the strict statutory timeframes. For these reasons, the application for review was not valid and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Danica Buljan
   Member