Deorico (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1811

Deorico (Migration) [2020] AATA 1811 (15 April 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Grace Deorico

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Nueva Castor

CASE NUMBER:  1927990

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/4486336

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:15 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 15 April 2020 at 10:51am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – application fee not paid – request to withdraw application – application not valid, so cannot be withdrawn – no response to tribunal’s communication – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 24 September 2019, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 3 October 2019. 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 3 December 2019. 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. No request was made for the Tribunal to reduce the prescribed application fee and no payment has been made. On 4 December 2019 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal asking to withdraw the application. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 10 December 2019 noting that as the fee had not been paid it appeared the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter meaning the application was not valid and therefore the application could not be withdrawn. The applicant was invited to comment on this information. No response was received.

5. As the fee has not been paid there is no valid application before the Tribunal. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Hugh Sanderson
   Member