Manormani (Migration)

[2022] AATA 5197

Manormani (Migration) [2022] AATA 5197 (1 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Anna Manormani
Mr Amrit Prasad

CASE NUMBER:  2202498

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/198978 PNJ

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:1 August 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 01 August 2022 at 11:55am

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 February 2022, to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 24 February 2022. 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 applicant was sent a natural justice letter but they did not respond to the invitation. 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

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

   Nora Lamont
   Member