Jafri (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3345

Jafri (Migration) [2018] AATA 3345 (20 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Nazri Jafri

CASE NUMBER:  1817772

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/2053435

MEMBER:Mary Urquhart

DATE:20 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 July 2018 at 12:24pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – applicable fee not paid – no jurisdiction

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 29 May 2018, to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 18 June 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 19 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.

4. On 29 June 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant indicating a view that as the fee had not been paid before the expiry time limit to do so the application was not valid. The letter invited comment in writing by 13 July 2018.

5. No response was received.

6. 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

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

   Mary Urquhart
   Member