You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia >>
2018 >>
[2018] AATA 568
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Context | No Context | Help
1803505 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 568 (28 February 2018)
Last Updated: 22 March 2018
1803505 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 568 (28 February 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1803505
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: China
MEMBER: Amanda Paxton
DATE: 28 February 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Statement made on 28 February 2018 at 11:55am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – China
– Review application out of time
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 431, 494C
Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.31
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has
been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act
1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the
identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
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 [in] November 2017 to refuse to grant
a protection visa under
s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The review application was
lodged with the Tribunal on 9 February 2018. For the following reasons, the
Tribunal has found
that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.
-
As the applicant was not in immigration detention on the day the applicant was
notified of the decision, an application for review
of the decision had to be
made within 28 days, commencing on that day: r.4.31(2) of the Migration
Regulations 1994.
-
The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was notified of
the decision by letter dated [on a date in] November
2017 and dispatched by
post. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was notified of the decision
in accordance with the statutory
requirements.
-
On 13 February 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant indicating its
preliminary view that the application for review was not
made within the
relevant time limit. It was noted that the primary decision was posted to the
applicant on [a date in] November 2017
meaning that [a later date in] November
2017 was the date on which the applicant was taken to have been notified. On
that basis,
the last day for lodging the application for review was [a date in]
December 2017. As the application was not received until 9 February
2018, it
appeared to be out of time. The applicant was invited to make comment on whether
a valid application has been made.
-
On 26 February 2018, the applicant emailed the Tribunal advising that:
- I did not
received DIBP decision on time as the registered letter notice was mistakenly
dropped to my neighbor’s mail box which
led to my delay of AAT review.
When I received the mail notice which was passed by neighbor, it has already
missed the deadline for
AAT review
- I feel very
innocent as I believe that the Australian post should be responsible for the
incident.
-
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submission but finds the
applicant was correctly notified. The Tribunal also notes
that the Department of
Home Affairs have provided evidence that the delegate’s decision record
was sent to the applicant by
registered post, Registered Post number [specified
number].[1] As indicated on the
Australia Post website, Registered post letters require proof of receipt with a
signature on delivery.[2] On this
basis, the Tribunal does not accept that the registered letter was mistakenly
dropped into the applicant’s neighbour’s
mail box as claimed.
-
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the
decision on [the later date in] November 2017: s.494C
of the Act. Therefore the
prescribed period to apply for review ended on [a date in] December 2017. As the
application for review
was not received by the Tribunal until 9 February 2018
the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant
legislation
and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.
DECISION
-
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this
matter.
Amanda Paxton
Member
[1] AAT 1803505, f.
19.
[2] https://auspost.com.au/sending/send-within-australia/compare-letter-services/registered-post-letters
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2018/568.html