BELL (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3342

BELL (Migration) [2018] AATA 3342 (14 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Andrew Philip BELL

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Sudarat Homkhajorn

CASE NUMBER:  1815678

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/2126169

MEMBER:Christine Cody

DATE:14 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 August 2018 at 4:13pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – applicable fee not paid – correct application form not used – 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 23 May 2018, 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 28 May 2018. 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 1 August 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. At the time the application for review was lodged, the sum of $884 was paid. By way of telephone conversation on 31 May 2018, the review applicant was advised that the prescribed fee was $1731. He said he did not wish to pay the remainder of the fee, as it would be cheaper for him to lodge another visa application. 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.

   Christine Cody
   Member