Khaddaj Mallat (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2791

Khaddaj Mallat (Migration) [2017] AATA 2791 (23 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Ghada Khaddaj Mallat

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Wael Ali

CASE NUMBER:  1722749

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2576730

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:23 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 23 November 2017 at 10:17am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – No jurisdiction - Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Request to reduce application fee - Not valid application – Non-payment of application fee

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)(b)

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 4.10, r 4.13, r 4.13(4)

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 9 August 2017, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 September 2017. 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 18 October 2017. 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. Before the prescribed period expired, the applicant asked the Tribunal to reduce the prescribed application fee. An authorised officer decided to refuse the request and the applicant was advised of this decision by letter dated 19 October 2017. The applicant was asked to pay the application fee within 14 days of receiving the Tribunal’s letter, by 2 November 2017. The Tribunal received no response from the applicant by this date.

5. On 21 November 2017 the authorised recipient contacted an officer of the Tribunal to enquire about the matter noting that the remaining fee had not been debited from her account. The officer informed her that no response to the letter had been received to date.  The Tribunal considers the applicant has been given a reasonable period to pay the fee since being notified of the authorised officer’s decision; however no payment authorisation has been received from the applicant and the fee has not been paid.

6. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Meena Sripathy
   Member