Abdul Manaff (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1402

Abdul Manaff (Migration) [2017] AATA 1402 (17 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Mohd Harry Abdul Manaff
Mr Yusri Muhammad Ezad Shouri

CASE NUMBER:  1713959

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2016/7525

MEMBER:R. Skaros

DATE:17 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 17 August 2017 at 4:21pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – No jurisdiction – Application fee not paid within prescribed period – Request for fee reduction made after valid review period

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

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

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 29 June 2017, to refuse to grant Bridging C (Class WC) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 June 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 20 July 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. On 30 June 2017 an officer of the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone about payment of the fee but there was no answer. The officer sent a letter to the applicant by email on 3 July 2017 requesting the applicant to complete, among other things, the method of payment on the relevant form. In the following days, further attempts were made to contact the applicant by telephone and email. On 17 July 2017 the officer again wrote to the applicant urging the applicant to provide the requested information, including the method of payment, by 20 July 2017 so the application can be accepted. On 19 July 2017 the applicant provided a completed form M1 but did not complete the payment details. On 20 July 2017 the officer again wrote to the applicant urging the applicant to provide the application fee using one of the methods of payment indicated on the application form. Several attempts were also made to contact the applicant by telephone but there was no answer.

5. On 1 August 2017 the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicants inviting them to comment on the validity of the application for review. The letter indicated that the application may not be valid as they had not paid the application fee within the prescribed period. On 12 August 2017 the applicant provided a completed request for fee reduction form and supporting documents.

6. The Tribunal did not receive payment of the fee and the request for fee reduction was received after the period within which a valid review could have been made. The prescribed period for making the application ended on 20 July 2017. 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.

   R. Skaros
   Member