Georgi and District Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal

[2017] AATA 1286

Georgi and District Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2017] AATA 1286 (8 August 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/3501

Re:Christian Georgi

APPLICANT

AndDistrict Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member A Poljak

Date:8 August 2017

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

.....................[sgd] ...................................................

Senior Member A Poljak

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FEES – reduced fee – request on basis of financial hardship – request for reduction refused

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 29(1)(b), 70
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 (Cth) r20, 21(h), 24

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A Poljak

8 August 2017

1. Mr Georgi, the applicant, has sought review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection dated 5 June 2017, refusing his application for Australian Citizenship. The applicant has requested a fee reduction on the basis that payment of the prescribed application fee of $884 would cause him financial hardship within the meaning of regulation 21(h) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 (Cth) (“the Regulation”).

2. In a letter dated 14 June 2017, the A/g Deputy District Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal notified the applicant, that his request for a fee reduction was refused (“the decision”). This is the decision under review in these proceedings.

3. By consent, this matter was heard on the papers.

   Legislative background

4. When an application for review of a decision is made to the Tribunal, s 29(1)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that it “must be accompanied by any prescribed fee”. 

5. The prescribed fee is determined according to Part 6 of the Regulation, which is made under s 70 of the Act. The starting point is r 20(1) of the Regulation, which sets out the standard application fee but it is qualified by other provisions.

6. The effect of r 24(2) of the Regulation is that an applicant has six weeks within which to pay the fee. That six week period begins on the day on which the application is lodged. Pursuant to r 24(1), the Tribunal “is not required to deal with the application unless, and until, the fee is paid.”

7. Regulation 20(3) provides that a fee of $100 is prescribed instead of the prescribed fee if:

   (a)the amount of the fee prescribed under subsection (1) or (2) is more than $100; and

   (b)the circumstances in section 21 exist.

8. The relevant circumstances for the purposes of determining this matter are contained in r 21(h), which provides:

   (h) the Registrar makes an order that, having regard to the applicant’s income, expenses, liabilities and assets, the Registrar considers that the payment of an amount would cause, or has caused, financial hardship to the applicant.

   Evidence and Consideration

9. The applicant has detailed his property and assets in a “Request for Fee Reduction” form dated 9 June 2017. The applicant records that he has $15,000 in ‘other investments’ and $13,000 in a Citibank account. This amounts to combined assets of $28,000. He receives an amount of $500 a fortnight for living expenses, has no dependents and has relatively modest fortnightly expenses and liabilities. He states that he has been taking care of his partner overseas due to illness but no further details or evidence has been provided about what this involves, financially or otherwise.

10. In a letter dated 10 July 2017, the applicant advised that he currently has no income. He says that payment of the full application fee would deplete his savings, which he intends to use for a house deposit in the future. Further, in an email dated 18 July 2017, the applicant says that he currently lives off his savings as he is not supported as much by his mum anymore.

11. The applicant has available funds in savings and investments to the combined value of $28,000. Despite not wanting to use these funds to pay the prescribed application fee, I am not satisfied that payment of the full application fee, in the amount of $884, would cause him financial hardship.

12. The decision under review is affirmed.

13.     I certify that the preceding 12  paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A Poljak 

...................[sgd].....................................................

Associate

Dated: 8 August 2017

Heard on the papers: 24 July 2017