GORDA (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2863

GORDA (Migration) [2018] AATA 2863 (19 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Georgiy GORDA

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Vadym GORDA

CASE NUMBER:  1810974

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/768571

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:19 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 June 2018 at 5:08pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Applicable fee not paid – Correct application form not used

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 22 March 2018, 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 18 April 2018. 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 12 April 2018. 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. After a number of telephone conversations with the review applicant the Tribunal wrote to him on 4 June 2018 indicating that it was the Tribunal’s view that the application was not valid as he had only paid $884 of the $1731 payable to lodge an application. The letter also indicated that it was the Tribunal’s view that the application lodged was not valid as it was not made on the approved form. The applicant was provided until 18 June 2018 to comment on whether a valid application had been made and he was invited to do so in writing.

5. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter.

6. 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

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

   Linda Holub
   Member