Reyneke (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3177

Reyneke (Migration) [2023] AATA 3177 (19 September 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Kelton Reyneke

VISA APPLICANT:  Mrs Chayata Sarasuk Broddle

CASE NUMBER:  2308483

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE:               BCC2023/3276949

MEMBER:Kate Chapple

DATE:19 September 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 19 September 2023 at 12:17pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – 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 Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 15 June 2023. 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. 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 23 August 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.

4. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced.

5. The review applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s letter dated 24 August 2023 inviting him to comment on the validity of his application for review.

6. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application.

   DECISION

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

   Kate Chapple
   Member