Waiomio (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2826

Waiomio (Migration) [2018] AATA 2826 (14 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Oshae Waiomio

CASE NUMBER:  1814083

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2096828

MEMBER:Ann Duffield

DATE:14 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 14 June 2018 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa – Subclass 444 (Special Category) – Review application out of time – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 347
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 2.55, 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 Immigration on 28 March 2018 to cancel the applicant’s Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 May 2018. 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 r.4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) an application for review of this decision had to be made within 7 working days after the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

3. The applicant provided a submission to the Tribunal in response to its letter to him indicating that it had formed a view that it had no jurisdiction to hear the review. In that submission the applicant argued that he had not been correctly notified because the department did not send the notification of their intention to cancel his visa to his last residential address known to the Minister.

4. The Tribunal has considered this matter and notes the following: the applicant was sent notifications by the department to two separate addresses that had been provided to it by the Queensland Department of Corrective services (QCS). QCS advised the department on 26 October 2017 that the applicant had provided both the Kingston and Hamilton addresses. These two addresses are the clients last residential addresses known by the Minister as required for the purposes of s.2.55(3)(c) of the Regulations.

5. The applicant, upon receiving his notification from one of the addresses (his grandmother’s address) notified the department that this was not where he was living at the time. He was living at the second address provided to the department, however this notification was marked “return to sender” because there was no unit number of the apartment building on the address. Having so notified the department that he was not living at his grandmother’s house, the applicant did not then proceed to offer the Minister an alternative address.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was advised of the department’s decision on 28 March 2018. The Tribunal is satisfied that the content and method of the department’s notification complied with the legislative requirement.

7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 10 April 2018. Therefore the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 19 April 2018.

8. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 15 May 2018 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.

   Ann Duffield
   Senior Member