Laopaoher (Migration)

[2024] AATA 991

Laopaoher (Migration) [2024] AATA 991 (27 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Chansy Laopaoher

CASE NUMBER:  2308733

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/3242194

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:27 March 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 March 2024 at 10:12am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347
Migration Regulations 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 for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 16 June 2023, 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 17 June 2023. 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.The Tribunal has also considered that this application for review was not made by a parent, spouse, defacto partner, child, brother or sister of the applicant who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident under s.347(2)(c).

5.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

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

Nora Lamont
Member