CHEPURI (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1693

CHEPURI (Migration) [2017] AATA 1693 (19 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr SANTOSH SAI SHARAN CHEPURI

CASE NUMBER:  1710588

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1702177

MEMBER:Catherine Carney-Orsborn

DATE:19 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 July 2017 at 10:43am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa –  Prescribed fee not paid – No determination to reduce fee

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)(b)

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 4.10, r 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 17 May 2017, to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 17 May 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 7 June 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 22 May 2017 the Tribunal send a natural justice letter to the applicant informing him that the application for review was not accompanied with the application fee and therefore not valid.  The Tribunal gave the applicant until 5 June 2017 to comment.

5. The applicant has not responded

6. 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

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

   Catherine Carney-Orsborn
   Member