Liang (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1700

Liang (Migration) [2017] AATA 1700 (13 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Yu Ern Liang

CASE NUMBER:  1712500

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2016/85488

MEMBER:Kate Millar

DATE:13 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

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

Statement made on 13 July 2017 at 1:42pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – ­Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa ­– Subclass 802 (Child) – ­Request for a reduction of prescribed fee ­– Prescribed fee unpaid within prescribed period

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulation 1994, r.4.10, r.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 Immigration, dated 25 May 2017, to refuse to grant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 13 June 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 15 June 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 23 June 2017. The applicant was asked to pay the application fee within 14 days of receiving the Tribunal’s letter. 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 the fee has not been paid. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Kate Millar
   Member