Ioannou (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2106

Ioannou (Migration) [2019] AATA 2106 (4 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Georgios Ioannou

CASE NUMBER:  1837975

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/4561829

MEMBER:Stephen Witts

DATE:4 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 04 March 2019 at 1:49pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – application fee – fee reduction request refused – full payment not received – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347, 494C
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. The applicant lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 20 December 2018, to cancel the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 27 December 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 3 January 2019. 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. Before the prescribed period expired, the applicant asked the Tribunal to reduce the prescribed application fee. The applicant also provided half the fee along with this reduction request. An authorised officer decided to refuse the request on 21 January 2019. The Tribunal did not receive the remaining application fee within the required period of time.

5. The Tribunal considers the applicant has been given a reasonable period to pay the fee since being notified of the authorised officer’s decision; however the fee has not been paid. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Stephen Witts
   Member