Aragao De Jesus (Migration)

[2018] AATA 4401

Aragao De Jesus (Migration) [2018] AATA 4401 (6 November 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Samira Aparecida Aragao De Jesus

CASE NUMBER:  1822790

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/2861339

MEMBER:Christine Cody

DATE:6 November 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 November 2018 at 5:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – applicable fee not paid – 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   

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 3 August 2018, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 August 2018 by the visa applicant in New Zealand. For the following reasons, the Tribunal 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 12 October 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. On 20 September 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the email address provided, noting that payment for the application had not been received. It was noted that the fee must be paid before the prescribed period ends on 12 October 2018. The applicant was invited to comment on this as well as other matters relevant to whether a valid application for review had been made. No response was received to the 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.

6. The Tribunal notes that other issues were raised with the applicant regarding the validity of the application for review; however it is not necessary to consider those, having regard to the finding in the above paragraph.

   DECISION

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

   Christine Cody
   Member