1730164 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 510

1730164 (Migration) [2018] AATA 510 (22 January 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1730164

MEMBER:Margie Bourke

DATE:22 January 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 January 2018 at 2:32pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Bridging – Bridging A (Class WA) visa – Subclass 010 (Bridging A) - Requirement for application fee to be paid within the prescribed period – Fee not paid within the prescribed period – Applicant claimed not to be aware of requirement – Notice of requirement taken to be given to applicant

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 4.10, 4.13

CASES
Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 [in] November 2017, to refuse to grant a Bridging A (Class WA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 November 2017. 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 21 December 2017. 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. The applicant lodged an application online [in] November 2017.  The tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone but was only able to leave a message with a friend. The tribunal sent an email to the applicant dated 6 December 2017 advising her that payment of the prescribed application fee within a time frame was required in order for a valid application to be made. The tribunal wrote to the applicant at her nominated email address by email dated 3 January 2018 inviting her to comment on the validity of the application as no payment had been received.  The tribunal received no response to this email. 

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.

   Margie Bourke
   Member