Riddett (Migration)

[2024] AATA 3729

Riddett (Migration) [2024] AATA 3729 (27 September 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Ms Sharifa Riddett

VISA APPLICANT:  Mr Bayani Fernandez Aliponga

CASE NUMBER:  2421141

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/3186238

MEMBER:Andrew Verduci

DATE:27 September 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 September 2024 at 7:37pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – application for review not made in accordance with relevant legislation – prescribed fee not paid within prescribed period – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b)
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 3 July 2024, 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 3 July 2024. However, 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. 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. There is no evidence before me that this application for review was accompanied by the prescribed fee within the prescribed period. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the requests for the review application to be withdrawn.

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.

   Andrew Verduci
   Member