1611342 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4361

1611342 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4361 (8 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Wing Yee Sze

CASE NUMBER:  1611342

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2223736

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:8 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 08 September 2016 at 12:35pm

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 19 July 2016, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 26 July 2016. 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 9 August 2016. 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. Despite a number of attempts to communicate with the applicant using an interpreter and emails regarding the need to pay an application fee, no response has been received.

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, 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.

   Tim Connellan
   Member