Nusonthara (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1685

Nusonthara (Migration) [2018] AATA 1685 (2 May 2018)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Suwit Nusonthara

CASE NUMBER:  1808848

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2015/60154 PNJ

MEMBER:Justin Meyer

DATE:2 May 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 02 May 2018 at 12:55pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 (Bridging C) – Review lodgement within the prescribed period – Payment of prescribed fee – 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 Immigration, dated 16 March 2018, to refuse to grant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 March 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 6 April 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. After the prescribed period expired, the applicant asked the Tribunal to reduce the prescribed application fee. The application for review is therefore not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

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

   Justin Meyer
   Member