Mondou (Migration)

Mondou (Migration) [2024] AATA 99 (15 January 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Miss Elisa Mondou
CASE NUMBER:  2318905
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/6118429
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:15 January 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

This Statement is made on 15^th January 2024 at 4.17PM.
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – fee not paid and no request for reduction within prescribed period – no jurisdiction
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 4.10, 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

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 31 October 2023, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 21 November 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.
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 21 November 2023. 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.
The applicant made no attempts to rectify the situation and the fee remained unpaid.
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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Peter Vlahos
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review concerning a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. The applicant, Mondou, sought review of a decision related to this visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the application for review. This question arose because the prescribed fee for the application had not been paid, nor had any request been made for a reduction of that fee within the stipulated timeframe.

The Tribunal reasoned that the payment of the prescribed fee, or a request for its reduction, was a mandatory prerequisite for a valid application for review. As these conditions had not been met, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not valid and therefore it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the review. The Tribunal accordingly determined that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Reasons for decision

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 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.Peter VlahosMember

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established