Fineza (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1716

Fineza (Migration) [2017] AATA 1716 (9 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Miss Frouline Diane Fineza
Mr Edwin Perez
Mr Farrel Edrion Perez

CASE NUMBER:  1714623

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/3412655

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 3:53pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Incorrect application form lodged for review – Prescribed fee not paid

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347,

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 Immigration, dated 20 June 2017, to refuse to grant Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 July 2017.

3. 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.

4. 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 11 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.

5. On 10 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants, at their address for service being their email address, advising them that they had lodged the incorrect application form for review of their decision [M2] and that they were required to lodged an M1 application and pay the prescribed fee for the review application. The applicants did not respond or lodge the M1 application.

6. On 13 July 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants, at their address for service being their email address, inviting comment that the application was not a valid application as the prescribed fee has not been paid. The applicants did not respond.

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

8. 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.

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member