Freezefresh Seafood Pty Ltd (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1624

Freezefresh Seafood Pty Ltd (Migration) [2020] AATA 1624 (16 April 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Freezefresh Seafood Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1931563

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/5113592

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:16 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 April 2020 at 2:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – application for review of refusal of visa nomination – application fee not paid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 347(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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. The applicant lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 16 October 2019, to review a refusal of a visa nomination under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 6 November 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 6 November 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. The applicant provided evidence of payment to the Department for the visa nomination and application however there is no evidence that the review application was accompanied by the required application fee.

5. 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

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

   Tim Connellan
   Member