Zhong (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1720

Zhong  (Migration) [2022] AATA 1720 (2 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Jiezhen Zhong

CASE NUMBER:  2202472

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/1717849 PNJ

MEMBER:Justine Clarke

DATE:2 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 02 June 2022 at 12:34pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – review application lodged out of time – No jurisdiction

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. On 23 February 2022, the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs made on 20 January 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

3. 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.

4. The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of the decision by letter dated 20 January 2022 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

5. On 25 March 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant, by email, inviting her to comment on the validity of the review. The letter requested any comments to be provided in writing by 8 April 2022.

6. On 6 April 2022, the applicant responded in writing. She stated that she had a ‘lack of sophisticated understanding of the appeal processes at the Tribunal due to [her] limited English literacy’. She said that she had asked a friend to explain to her the process and that, on 9 February 2022, she had asked her named son-in-law to represent her and to forward her application letter to the Tribunal. She stated that both her friend and son-in-law had incorrectly presumed that the review application could be lodged by email and noted that, on 10 February 2022, the Tribunal had informed her that she needed to use the application form M1 as well as pay the prescribed fee of $3,000 within the required time limit—10 February 2022. She said that the amount of the prescribed fee ‘was a pain for a retiree like me to bear’ but that, after a few days and with the assistance of her friend, on 23 February 2022, she lodged the application with the prescribed fee. She concluded by stating, ‘I have attempted to comply with the time limit directions but did not completely understand what process I needed to follow’.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submission. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 20 January 2022: s 494C of the Act. Therefore, the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 10 February 2022. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 23 February 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

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

   Justine Clarke
   Member