Keithani Gopal (Migration)

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

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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Amanda Mendes Da Costa
Member

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review concerning a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600. The applicant, Keithani Gopal, sought review of a decision related to this visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the application for review. This question arose due to the applicant's failure to pay the prescribed fee for the application and the absence of any determination or request for a reduction of that fee.

The Tribunal reasoned that the payment of the prescribed fee, or a determination for its reduction, is a prerequisite for a valid application for review. As these conditions were not met in this instance, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not valid and therefore it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the review. The Tribunal made no orders as it determined it had no jurisdiction.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established