1821173 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3665

1821173 (Migration) [2018] AATA 3665 (15 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1821173

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic

DATE:15 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 15 August 2018 at 11:31am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – Applicable fee not paid – Correct application form not used – No jurisdiction

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

CASES

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

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 12 July 2018, to refuse to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 July 2018. 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 2 August 2018. 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 Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 3 August 2018 inviting submissions on this issue.

5. On 10 August 2018, the applicant wrote to the tribunal stating that he applied for a protection visa which was refused, that he cannot go back to his home country because has specific problems in Malaysia and that he again applied for protection visa on 5 July 2018 but this application was also refused on 12 July 2018.

6. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that 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

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

   Antonio Dronjic
   Member