Mondou (Migration)

[2024] AATA 99

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

1. 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).

2. 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.

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 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.

4. The applicant made no attempts to rectify the situation and the fee remained unpaid.

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.

   Peter Vlahos
   Member