Singh v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Singh against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which found it had no jurisdiction to review the Minister for Immigration's decision to cancel his Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that he was not properly notified of the cancellation decision, and that his application for review was therefore lodged within the prescribed time.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the MRT had correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Singh's application for review. This involved considering whether the applicant had been validly notified of the visa cancellation decision according to the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and consequently, whether his application for review was lodged within the statutory time limit.

Emmett J reasoned that the *Migration Act* and *Regulations* prescribed specific methods for notifying visa holders of cancellation decisions and for deeming when such notification is taken to have been received. The Tribunal had found that the notification letter, dated 13 October 2014, was dispatched by registered post on 14 October 2014 to the applicant's last known residential address. Under regulation 2.55(7) of the *Migration Regulations*, a document dispatched by prepaid post to an Australian address is taken to have been received seven working days after the date of the document. The Tribunal determined that Mr. Singh was therefore taken to have been notified on 22 October 2014, meaning the seven-working-day period for lodging a review application expired on 31 October 2014. As Mr. Singh's application was lodged on 6 November 2014, the Tribunal concluded it was out of time and thus lacked jurisdiction.

The court upheld the MRT's decision. Emmett J found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions regarding notification and the deemed receipt of documents. The evidence before the Tribunal, including dispatch records and returned envelopes, supported its finding that the notification process had been undertaken in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Tribunal's conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to review the cancellation decision was upheld.