1513616 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 3403

1513616 (Migration) [2016] AATA 3403 (18 February 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Minh Duc Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  1513616

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1151783

MEMBER:Steve Georgiadis

DATE:18 February 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 18 February 2016 at 8:31am

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, dated 6 October 2015, to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 6 October 2015. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.347(1) of the Act and r.4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, this application had to be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, as specified in s.347(1)(b) and r.4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under r.4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 27 October 2015. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. On 30 October 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by e-mail expressing the view that the application is not a valid application as the application fee has not been paid and inviting comment on the validity of the application. There was no response.

5. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced. In these circumstances, where the prescribed period for payment has ended and no fee has been paid, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Steve Georgiadis
   Member