Ali (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2517

Ali (Migration) [2020] AATA 2517 (27 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Sajad Ali

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Maliha Batool

CASE NUMBER:  1925054

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ duplicate of 1925682

MEMBER:Moira Brophy

DATE:27 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 27 May 2020 at 2:05pm         

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – no payment of fee within prescribed period – no request to reduce fee – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, rr 4.10, 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 21 August 2019, to refuse to grant a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 5 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, 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 30 October 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. 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

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

   Moira Brophy
   Member