Veerpal Kaur (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2454

Veerpal Kaur (Migration) [2022] AATA 2454 (28 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs  Veerpal Kaur

CASE NUMBER:  2206584

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/1164058

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:28 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 28 June 2022 at 9:19am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) –support person for husband – combined application made on last day of 21-day application period – applications for separate decisions by department cannot be combined – advised by tribunal staff member that separate application on first day after application period would be valid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b), 494C
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.10

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 13 April 2022 to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 5 May 2022. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

2. Pursuant to s 347(1)(b) of the Act and reg 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

3. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 13 April 2022 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 6 May 2022 advising the application was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The Tribunal requested a response by 20 May 2022. The applicant provided a response on 6 May 2022. The applicant advised

   ·“I am Veerpal Kaur d.o.b. 02/08/1995 resident of address 197 Wharf street Queens park 6107, passport no N6797163, case no 2206584. My husband has applied for review on 04/05/2022. While filling the online review form, we mentioned both the applicants in the form. I thought it might need to apply only one application for both of us together. That was the reason I applied as a combined application with my husband.

   ·On the following day 05/05/2022, I have got called by person named “Julie B.” from Administrator Appeals Tribunal around 12 P.M. I have been advised over telephonic conversation that “ I need to apply in a separate application of review for myself also she mentioned that I can apply only today itself even though it has passed one day of 21 days. She advised me that if I can apply today only which was 05/05/2022 still my application will be valid.

   ·I am writing this to request you, kindly accept my application it will be really appreciated. Thanks for understanding my situation.

5. The Tribunal has considered the above response

6. On 4 May 2022 the RA and husband lodged a combined application for review of a refusal of a UB 602 Medical Visa and a UB 602 Support Person. As separate decisions have been made by the Department, the applications cannot be combined. Related combined case is 2206538.

7. The RA has lodged this application for a review of the UB 602 Support Person refusal.

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 13 April 2022: s 494C of the Act. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 4 May 2022.

9. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 5 May 2022 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

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

    Mark Bishop
    Member