Thompson (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2687

Thompson (Migration) [2017] AATA 2687 (16 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Adelle Susan Thompson

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Harpreet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1722863

DIBP REFERENCE:  BCC2015/2277741

MEMBER:Rosa Gagliardi

DATE:16 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 November 2017 at 12:39pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Application out of time – Tribunal notified applicant

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 65, 347(1)(b)

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 13 July 2017, to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 September 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 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 70 days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. In the interests of natural justice the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant, Mrs Adelle Susan Thompson, to advise that it appeared that a valid application had not been made as it was not lodged within the relevant time.  It was explained that the primary decision was emailed to Mr Harpreet Singh, the authorised recipient on 13 July 2017 and that on that basis,

   
   

   13 July 2017 was the date on which Mr Harpreet Singh was taken to have been notified.  The last day for lodging the application for review was 21 September 2017.  As the application was not received until 22 September 2017, a preliminary assessment of the application showed that the application for review was out of time.

5. Furthermore, the review applicant was advised that the application may not be valid as it appeared that Mr Harpreet Singh was in the migration zone at the time of the visa application.  As the UF 309 visa is an offshore visa, this means Mr Harpreet Singh should not have been in the migration zone (on shore in Australia) at the time the application was made to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

6. The applicant was invited to provide a response or comment on the above information.  At the time of writing no response from the review applicant has been received. 

7. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 13 July 2017 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 13 July 2017. Therefore the prescribed period within which the review application could be made ended on 21 September 2017. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 22 September 2017 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

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

   Rosa Gagliardi
   Member