Hoilape (Migration)

[2024] AATA 942

Hoilape (Migration) [2024] AATA 942 (22 April 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Locksley Godfrey HOILAPE

CASE NUMBER:  2404025

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               BCC2024/263836

MEMBER:Kate Chapple

DATE:22 April 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 22 April 2024 at 12:22pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – prescribed fee not paid – no valid application – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 Home Affairs, dated 14 February 2024, to refuse to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 4 March 2024. 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 reg 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 reg 4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in reg 4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 27 March 2024 inviting him to comment on the validity of his application by 10 April 2024, noting the non-payment of the prescribed fee. The applicant wrote the Tribunal on 10 April 2024 requesting that in the circumstances the delegate’s refusal decision be reviewed by the Tribunal.

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.

   Kate Chapple
   Member