Keithani Gopal (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3106

Keithani Gopal (Migration) [2024] AATA 3106 (22 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mrs Sravya Keithani Gopal

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Naveen Keithani Gopal

CASE NUMBER:  2411604

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/2390921

MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa

DATE:22 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 August 2024 at 10.02am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – applicable fee not paid – correct application form not used – 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 Home Affairs, dated 9 May 2024, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 13 May 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.

3. 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. 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 . 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.

4. On 23 July 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it was of the view that her review application is not a valid application as the application fee has not been paid.

5. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide any comments (in writing) on whether the review application is a valid application by 6 August 2024. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not provided any comments on whether the application is a valid one.

6. 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

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

   Amanda Mendes Da Costa
   Member