Hsu (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1702

Hsu (Migration) [2017] AATA 1702 (5 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Wen-Pin Hsu

CASE NUMBER:  1712548

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1247905

MEMBER:Justin Meyer

DATE:5 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 05 July 2017 at 12:57pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) – Subclass 820 (Spouse) – Prescribed fee paid outside prescribed period

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 347, 65

Migration Regulations 1994, r.4.10, 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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 2 June 2017, to refuse to grant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 13 June 2017. 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 23 June 2017. 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 paid the prescribed fee late and outside of the prescribed period , i.e. on the 30^th of June 2017.  The Tribunal received payment of the fee on 30^th of June 2017. However, the prescribed period for making the application ended on 23 June 2017. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Justin Meyer
   Member