Rattakunchon (Migration)

[2018] AATA 1655

Rattakunchon (Migration) [2018] AATA 1655 (9 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Rujaphon Rattakunchon

CASE NUMBER:  1807090

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/4368183 PNJ

MEMBER:M. Edgoose

DATE:9 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 09 April 2018 at 1:17pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Payment of prescribed fee

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 21 February 2018, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 14 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 14 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 Tribunal made contact with the applicant via email on 20 March 2018 requesting the following documents, primary notification letter, primary decision record, proof of despatch and evidence of the applicant’s last known address, within 5 days.  By 3 April 2018 the requested documents and payment of the prescribed fees had not been received. 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

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

   M. Edgoose
   Member