Sivameena (Migration) - [2020] AATA 1818

Sivameena (Migration) [2020] AATA 1818 (19 February 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT: Master Hrithik Sivameena

CASE NUMBER: 1907145

DIBP REFERENCE(S): CLF2019/890

MEMBER: Wendy Banfield

DATE: 19 February 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this

matter.

Statement made on 19 February 2020 at 1:56pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa – Subclass 802 (Child) – review application out of time – initial submissions did not include application form – fee not paid – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.55, 4.10

CASES

Liu v MIBP [2013] FCCA 2208
Russell v MHA [2019] FCAFC 110

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 21 February 2019 to refuse to grant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 13 March 2019. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.
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.
The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 21 February 2019 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.
On 13 March 2019 the Tribunal received emails on behalf of the applicant attaching documents relevant to an application for review. No Application for Review Form was received on that date. On 26 March 2019 the Tribunal received part payment for an application for review and an email claiming the application form had been sent on 13 March 2019. The email included zip files that contained separate scanned pages of an Application for Review Form and an Application for Fee Reduction. The PDF documents were dated 13 March 2019. Although submissions were made that the documents in the zip files were proof the application had been made in time, no evidence of a sent email from the relevant date to the Tribunal that included the application documents was provided.
The Tribunal’s IT Department made extensive searches the try and locate an email from 13 March 2019 containing an Application for Review Form but was unable to. Relevant to the applicant’s case, an application is ‘given to’ the Tribunal when it is physically delivered which, in respect of an electronic transmission, means that it must be capable of being retrieved by the Tribunal. In Liu v MIBP, [2013] FCCA 2208, the Court held an application was not ‘given to’ the Tribunal within the prescribed period because it was not received by the Tribunal’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sivameena (Migration) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 1818
Decision Date: 19 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Sivameena, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning her application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802. The primary issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, constituted by Banfield J, was whether the AAT had jurisdiction to consider Sivameena's application for review.

The court was required to determine whether Sivameena's application for review to the AAT was validly made within the prescribed time limits. Specifically, the court considered whether the absence of a completed application form and the non-payment of the prescribed fee at the time of lodging the initial submissions constituted a failure to make a valid application for review, thereby divesting the AAT of jurisdiction.

Banfield J reasoned that a valid application for review to the AAT requires both the lodgement of the prescribed application form and the payment of the prescribed fee. The court found that Sivameena's initial submissions, which did not include the application form and for which the fee was not paid, did not constitute a valid application for review. Consequently, the AAT lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of her application.

The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed.

Orders