HAM (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2868

HAM (Migration) [2018] AATA 2868 (20 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Taejin HAM

CASE NUMBER:  1816540

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:                BCG2018/1800385

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:20 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 20 June 2018 at 9:34am

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Applicable fee not paid

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 18 May 2018, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 6 June 2018.

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 8 June 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.

5. On 13 June 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at his address for service, inviting comment that the application was not a valid application as the prescribed fee has not been paid. The applicant responded on 13 June 2018 advising that he had lodged another application [1815191] and had paid the fee.

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

7. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member