1925249 (Migration)

[2020] AATA 827

1925249 (Migration) [2020] AATA 827 (5 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1925249

MEMBER:Mireya Hyland

DATE:5 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 05 March 2020 at 1:47pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging A (Class WA) – Subclass 010 (Bridging A) – application fee not paid – no jurisdiction 

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 347
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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. The [applicant] lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 28 August 2019, to cancel his Bridging A (Class WA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 6 September 2019. 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 (the Regulations), 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 6 September 2019. 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 23 January 2020, the Tribunal wrote to [the applicant] informing him that it was of the view that his application is not a valid application because the application fee had not been paid. It invited him to comment on the validity of his application for review by 6 February 2020. As at the date of the decision the Tribunal has received no response to its letter.

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.

   Mireya Hyland
   Member