Ibrahim (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1185

Ibrahim (Migration) [2022] AATA 1185 (22 February 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Zamzarina Ibrahim

CASE NUMBER:  2117994

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          CLF2017/4976

MEMBER:Angela Julian-Armitage

DATE:22 February 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 22 February 2022 at 3:40pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 (Bridging C) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347
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 Immigration and Border Protection, dated 24 October 2017, to refuse to grant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 November 2021. 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. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 21 December 2021. 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 prescribed fee has not been paid either within the time frame required or at all. Furthermore, no determination has been made (or requested for that matter) that the fee should be reduced. In the 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.

   Angela Julian-Armitage
   Member