Moung (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4840

Moung (Migration) [2022] AATA 4840 (22 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Ny Moung

VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Nut MORNG

CASE NUMBER:  2207996

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/509086

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:22 August 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 August 2022 at 4:54pm

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 27 April 2022, 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 25 May 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. On 1 June 2022 the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant to request the correct form to be completed and application fee to be paid to meet the requirements for a valid application for review. No response was received and no payment was made.

5. On 22 July 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised them of a preliminary view that the application is not valid as the application fee was not paid before the expiry of the time limit for lodging the application.  The applicant was invited to provide comments or a response by 5 August 2022. 

6. On 22 July 2022 the Tribunal received an email from the same email address requesting the Tribunal to “please cancel the appeal.”  On the same date a further email was received stating “I am not paying 3000 to appeal a visa that should have already been granted.”

7. 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

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

   Meena Sripathy
   Member