Budianto (Migration)

Budianto (Migration) [2024] AATA 2136 (12 June 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Budianto
CASE NUMBER:  2407957
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC20235733880
MEMBER:James Silva
DATE:12 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 12 June 2024 at 11:22am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – application fee had not been paid – no determination has been made that the fee should be reduced – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 347, Schedule 2

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

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 26 March 2024, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 12 April 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 . 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 receipt of the application form, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant noting that he had not paid the full application fee, and recommending that he make the full payment, or alternatively lodge a fee reduction request with supporting documents for its consideration. The Tribunal’s email had attached to it the relevant forms. There was no response. There was also no acknowledgement or reply to the Tribunal’s natural justice letter of 16 May 2024.
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.
James Silva
Member

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review by Mr Budianto concerning a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the payment of the application fee.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr Budianto's application for review, given that the prescribed application fee had not been paid and no determination had been made, nor requested, that the fee should be reduced.

The Tribunal reasoned that the payment of the prescribed fee, or a determination for its reduction, was a prerequisite for a valid application for review. As these conditions had not been met, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Consequently, the application for review was deemed invalid.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established