1609840 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Migration Review Tribunal, brought by Miss Siyun Hou and Mr Weihua Li. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of their application for review due to non-payment of the prescribed fee and the lodgement of an incorrect form.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application for review. This involved considering the requirements for a valid application under section 347(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and regulation 4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically the timely payment of the prescribed fee and the lodgement of the correct form.

The Tribunal reasoned that pursuant to section 347(1) of the Act and regulation 4.13 of the Migration Regulations, an application for review must be lodged within the prescribed period and accompanied by the prescribed fee, unless a reduction in the fee has been determined on the grounds of financial hardship. The prescribed period for lodging the application and paying the fee had expired on 21 July 2016. Despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact the applicants regarding the outstanding fee and incorrect form, the fee remained unpaid, and no request for a fee reduction had been made. Applying the principles established in cases such as *Kirk v MIMA* and *Braganza v MIMA*, the Tribunal concluded that because the prescribed fee had not been paid within the required timeframe, the application for review was not valid, and therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed.