Keisuke (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3956

Keisuke (Migration) [2018] AATA 3956 (25 September 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Saeki Keisuke

CASE NUMBER:  1821310

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/568874

MEMBER:Susan Trotter

DATE:25 September 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 25 September 2018 at 5:00pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) – 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

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to s378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 Home Affairs, dated 3 July 2018, to refuse to grant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 July 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.

4. 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 24 July 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.

5. On 25 July 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the email address as advised in the M1 application form at Part F, namely “[email address]”. The Tribunal’s letter indicated that its preliminary view was that the applicant’s 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. The letter invited the review applicant to provide any comments on whether a valid application had been made by 8 August 2018.

6. The applicant has subsequently provided various documentation in support of the substance of his application. Notably the email address from which the applicant provided this further information is also the same email address to which the Tribunal’s 25 July 2018 invitation was sent. However, no response has been given by applicant to the jurisdiction issue raised by the Tribunal in its invitation of 25 July 2018.

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.

   Susan Trotter
   Member