Bong (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1367

Bong (Migration) [2021] AATA 1367 (24 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Wui Min Bong

CASE NUMBER:  2101328

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/3933242

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:24 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 24 March 2021 at 2:42pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 (Bridging C) – 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 February 2021, to refuse to grant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 4 February 2021. 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 24 February 2021. 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. A natural Justice letter dated 26/02/2021 stated the application appeared to be invalid as the fee had not been paid. He did not respond within the time given. The applicant then responded on 16 March 2021 stating that he cannot afford to pay the fee or even half the fee as he has no funds available to do so.

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.

   C. Packer
   Member