Neal (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3175

Neal (Migration) [2023] AATA 3175 (16 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Dennis Roland Neal

CASE NUMBER:  2309877

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1010109

MEMBER:Sheridan Aster

DATE:16 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 August 2023 at 10:38am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa – Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 338, 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 14 June 2023, to refuse to grant a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 5 July 2023. However, the applicant incorrectly applied for the review of a protection visa refusal and did not pay the relevant application fee for the review type. 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.

4. 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 5 July 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.

5. On 6 July 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review. At the date of this decision no response had been received.

6. 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

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

   Sheridan Aster
   Member