Johar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1943

Johar (Migration) [2018] AATA 1943 (3 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Jonaib Johar

CASE NUMBER:  1806880

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2018/26811

MEMBER:Helena Claringbold

DATE:3 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 03 May 2018 at 9:58am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – Review application within the prescribed period – Payment of prescribed fee

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 457.223(4)(a), 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 13 March 2018, 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 14 March 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 April 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 13 April 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advised him that, at the time of lodging the application for review, he had not paid the prescribed fee and the last day for payment was 3 April 2018. He was also informed that the application for review was not made on the approved form. He was invited to comment on the validity of the application for review with a response to be with the Tribunal by 27 April 2018.  At the time of this decision the applicant had not provided any further information to the Tribunal.

5. 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

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

   Helena Claringbold
   Member