Nabati (Migration)

[2023] AATA 493

Nabati (Migration) [2023] AATA 493 (13 March 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Sandra Nabati
Ms Stephanie  KAKONA

CASE NUMBER:  2218263

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/4010732

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:13 March 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 March 2023 at 4:52am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – 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. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 21 October 2022, to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 12 December 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. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 20 January 2023 indicating that there did not appear to be a valid application as the prescribed fee had not been paid. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond but did not do so.

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.

   David McCulloch
   Member