Mason (Migration)

[2018] AATA 4380

Mason (Migration) [2018] AATA 4380 (26 October 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr David Stuart Mason

CASE NUMBER:  1827350

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/2324077

MEMBER:Ann Duffield

DATE:26 October 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 26 October 2018 at 10:45am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa – Subclass 444 (Special Category) – applicable fee not paid – 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

1. The applicant lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 13 September 2018, to cancel the applicant’s Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 18 September 2018. 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 4 October 2018. 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. The Tribunal communicated on several occasions with the applicant and their representative and sent relevant forms in relation to requests for a fee reduction.

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.

   Ann Duffield
   Senior Member