Dawarnia (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4173

Dawarnia (Migration) [2022] AATA 4173 (1 November 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Mohd Hassan Dawarnia

VISA APPLICANT:  Ms Tahereh Dawarnia

CASE NUMBER:  2209942

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1987906

MEMBER:Jessica Henderson

DATE:1 November 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 01 November 2022 at 1:31pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visas – subclass 600 – application fee had not been paid in full – no determination has been made that the fee should be reduced –no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347, Schedule 2

Migration Regulations 1994, r 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 Home Affairs, dated 3 June 2022, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 8 July 2022. 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 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.

4. The applicant did not lodge his application through the Migration and Refugee Division, and consequently, as the holder of a relevant concession card, paid the reduced fee of $100.  By letter dated 11 July 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email and set out that the required application fee was $3,153, of which only $100 had been paid.  That email set out the option of applying for a 50% fee reduction in the event that the full fee would cause financial hardship and attached the relevant form.

5. The applicant did not respond, make any payment, or apply for a financial hardship discount.

6. On 15 August 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant expressing the preliminary view that the application was not valid because of the non-payment of the full fee and inviting the applicant to comment on that preliminary view by 29 August 2022.  The Tribunal did not receive any response.

7. The prescribed fee has not been paid in full

8. 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

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

   Jessica Henderson
   Member