ARYA (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1882

ARYA (Migration) [2017] AATA 1882 (13 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr EASSAN ARYA

CASE NUMBER:  1719894

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2006442

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:13 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 October 2017 at 1:22pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Notification of decision – Application filed out of time – Failure to pay fee - Discontinued application

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.10, 4.13

CASES

Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99

Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364

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 6 July 2017, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 August 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 19 September 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 27 September 2017, Tribunal wrote to the applicant to invite him to comment on the validity of the application for review as the application fee had not been paid. The applicant had contacted the Tribunal on 12 September to advise that he does not want to continue with the application.  No further response has been received to the Tribunal’s 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.

   Meena Sripathy
   Member