Visa Cancellation - Section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – TIME LIMITS ON APPLYING FOR REVOCATION OF VISA CANCELLATION.
By Iyare Lucky Ehimudiamen, ESQ.
In Sillars and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 994 the review applicant failed to lodge a revocation request with the Minister of Immigration within the allowed 28-day period under the migration regulations.
Mr. Andrew Silliars aged 33 at the time of review arrived in Australia as a five-months old child. His visa was cancelled in November 2018 but he failed to complete and return to the Department of Immigration a revocation of visa cancellation request within 28 days. He submitted the request to revoke his visa cancellation on 27 December 2018. The Minister refused to revoke his visa cancellation thereby making him subject to deportation back to England. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that because Mr. Silliars failed to lodge a request for revocation within the prescribed time limit the Tribunal could not make a decision to revoke the visa cancellation.
When inmates or visa holders receive a MANDATORY NOTICE OF VISA CANCELLATION under section 501(CA) it is vital regardless of their final decision to challenge the visa cancellation to immediately apply for revocation of the visa cancellation within 28 days. By completing and lodging the form to request a revocation of the visa application the inmate and visa holder can keep their review rights alive.
If your subclass 444 (special category visa), subclass 500 (student visa), subclass 820/801 partner visa, subclass 202 global special humanitarian visa, refugee visa subclass 200 has been cancelled and you want to successfully revoke the cancellation contact us for a free consultation.
We are authorized and regularly visit immigration detention centers and correctional centers for consultations with our clients.
We have expert migration lawyers allowing your conversations to be protected under legal professional privilege. Migration agents who are not lawyers cannot provide their clients such protections as afforded by lawyers.
Comments