Narvas (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2399

Narvas (Migration) [2018] AATA 2399 (31 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Elman Narvas

VISA APPLICANT:  Miss Alyssa Carla Catoy

CASE NUMBER:  1812685

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  PNJ

MEMBER:Margie Bourke

DATE:31 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 31 May 2018 at 12:55pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Applicable 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 2 March 2018, 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 2 May 2018. 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 11 May 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. Notification of the Department’s decision record dated 2 March 2018 was sent to the applicant via email.  The applicant lodged the application for review at the tribunal online on 2 May 2018.  The applicant provided the tribunal with a telephone contact number and an email address for correspondence from the tribunal.

5. The tribunal had not received payment of the prescribed application fee with the application for review.  The tribunal left a telephone message for the applicant on her provided telephone number on 3 May 2018, requesting the applicant return the call.  The tribunal sent an email to the applicant dated 3 May 2018 advising the prescribed fee is required to be paid with the prescribed period, and also advising the applicant can apply for reduction of the prescribed fee.  The tribunal officer attempted to call the applicant on 10 May 2018, and on 11 May 2018, but was unable to leave a message on the telephone number provided.

6. The tribunal sent a letter dated 14 May 2018 to the applicant to his email address, inviting the applicant to comment on whether a valid application for review had been made, as the application fee had not been paid before the expiry of the time for lodging the application.

7. The tribunal did not receive any response to the telephone messages or the email or the letter dated 14 May 2018 inviting the applicant to comment on the validity of the application.  The tribunal did not receive payment of the prescribed fee for the application for review.

8. 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

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

   Margie Bourke
   Member