Karle (Migration)

[2024] AATA 326

Karle (Migration) [2024] AATA 326 (19 February 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Shivali Karle

CASE NUMBER:  2400592

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC20236682350 PNJ

MEMBER:Alan McMurran

DATE:19 February 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 February 2024 at 7:21pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – application fee not paid – no response to natural justice letter – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)
Migration Regulation 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. This is an application lodged 16 January 2024 for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 8 January 2024, to refuse to grant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, Ms Shivali Karle, is a citizen of India and has applied for a Temporary Graduate Subclass 485 visa.

3. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 16 January 2024. 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.

4. Pursuant to s 347(1) of the Act and reg 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 reg 4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship.

5. The prescribed period is set out in reg 4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 29 January 2024 . The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under reg 4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

6. On 31 January 2024, the Tribunal sent a natural justice letter to the applicant. The letter informed the applicant that the application is not a valid application as the application fee had not been paid and the prescribed time limit to pay the Tribunal fee had expired. The applicant was invited to respond in writing by 14 February 2024.

7. The applicant did not respond in time, or at all. No submissions have been received from the applicant or on her behalf. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced.

8. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Alan McMurran
   Member