Jaya (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2401

Jaya (Migration) [2021] AATA 2401 (18 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Susie Jaya

CASE NUMBER:  2102463

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:18 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 18 June 2021 at 4:31pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – 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 10 February 2021, to refuse to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 28 February 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 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 March 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 r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. On 1 March 2021 a Tribunal officer wrote to the applicant advising her that reviews of a bridging visa refusal have an associated fee of $1826 and seeking payment of that fee, noting that payment must be made within the prescribed period if the application is to be considered valid.

5. On 23 March 2021 a Tribunal officer wrote to the applicant advising him that it appeared his application was not a valid application as he did not pay the application fee before the expiry of the time limit for lodging the application. That letter invited the applicant to comment on whether a valid application had been made.

6. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter and has not otherwise made contact with the Tribunal.

7. 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

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

   Alison Murphy
   Member