Jahangir (Migration)

[2017] AATA 3135

Jahangir (Migration) [2017] AATA 3135 (22 June 2017)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Umar Jahangir

CASE NUMBER:  1703418

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  bcc2017/404899

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:22 June 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 June 2017 at 3:07pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – Unpaid Tribunal fees – Reasonable period given – 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 6 February 2017, 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 27 February 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 by 50% 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 27 February 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. In this case the review application and the request for fee reduction were both received on 27 February 2017. No fee payment was received at that time. The same day the applicant was advised that he must pay 50% of the application fee by the end of the day in order for his application to be valid. No payment was received.

5. On 29 March 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to advise him as he had not paid the required application fee at the relevant time his application appeared to be invalid. He was  to invite to provide comments by 12 April 2017.  On 30 March 2017 he telephoned the Tribunal to advise that he intended to respond to the Tribunal’s letter and said that he had borrowed the money for the application fee. On 3 April 2017 he emailed the Tribunal to advise that he would pay the fee in instalments. No further correspondence has been received and the fee remains unpaid.

6. The Tribunal considers the applicant has been given a reasonable period to pay the fee. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Roslyn Smidt
   Member