Moyes (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1366

Moyes (Migration) [2018] AATA 1366 (4 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Dewan Abdul Moyes

VISA APPLICANT:  Mukta Rani Bhuiyan

CASE NUMBER:  1733182

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/4707155

MEMBER:Melissa McAdam

DATE:4 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 April 2018 at 2:23pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Prescribed fee not paid

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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 29 December 2017, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 29 December 2017. 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 9 March 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 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.

   Melissa McAdam
   Member