Angeles (Migration)

Angeles (Migration) [2024] AATA 2812 (12 July 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Herman Angeles
VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Lorna Isid
CASE NUMBER:  2405873
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/1393112
MEMBER:Wendy Banfield
DATE:12 July 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 12 July 2024 at 2:01pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – No jurisdiction
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 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
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 22 March 2024, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 March 2024. 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.
Pursuant to s 347(1) of the Act and reg 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 reg 4.10 and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in reg 4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 31 May 2024. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.
On 27 March 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email requesting payment of the prescribed fee. The applicant did not respond to the email or pay the fee. On 5 June 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting comment on the validity of the application for review as the prescribed fee had not been paid by the due date. The applicant was invited to reply by 19 June 2024 but there was no response.
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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Wendy Banfield
Member

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant, Angeles, sought to challenge a decision relating to a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the application for review, given that the prescribed fee for the application had not been paid, and no request for a fee reduction had been made or determined.

The Tribunal, constituted by Member Wendy Banfield, reasoned that the payment of the prescribed fee is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a valid application for review. As the fee had not been paid and no determination regarding a reduction had been made, the application was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the review.

The Tribunal therefore determined that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established