Poh Ngiik (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2388

Poh Ngiik (Migration) [2018] AATA 2388 (31 May 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Chai Poh Ngiik

CASE NUMBER:  1807887

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/899106 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 1:55pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Applicable fee not paid – Correct application form not used

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 6 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 22 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 27 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 review applicant lodged her application review online on 22 March 2018. The review applicant applied for the review using the incorrect form, which indicated no fee was required. An officer of the Tribunal contacted the review applicant on 27 March 2018 and advised the application for review required an application fee to be provided within the required time, and that the applicant could apply for a reduction of the prescribed fee. The applicant advised the officer of the Tribunal that she did not wish to pay an application fee, or the reduced fee, which is 50% of the application fee.

5. The Tribunal sent a letter dated 29 March 2018 to the applicant’s email address. The Tribunal notes that this email address was provided to the Tribunal officer, and is not the email address nominated by the applicant on the application for review form.  The tribunal is satisfied that the email address to which it sent its letter dated 29 March 2018, is the correct email address provided by the applicant. In the letter dated 29 March 2018, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide any comments in relation to the validity of her application as the application fee had not been paid before the expiry of the time limit for lodging the application.

6. The tribunal did not receive any response to its letter dated 29 March 2018 from the applicant. The Tribunal has not received payment of the application fee for the application for review.

7. 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

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

   Margie Bourke
   Member