Chung (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1721

Chung (Migration) [2017] AATA 1721 (9 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Chen-Shuo Chung

CASE NUMBER:  1715640

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1236579

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:9 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 09 August 2017 at 4:49pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Prescribed fee not paid

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)

Migration Regulations1994, 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 29 June 2017, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 19 July 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 20 July 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 26 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, at his address for service,  inviting comment that the application was not a valid application as the prescribed fee has not been paid. The applicant responded on 2 August 2017 requesting he be allowed to complete his studies and advising that he had a computer problem when lodging the application form.

5. The Tribunal has no discretion. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced.

6. 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.

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member