Samaan (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2846

Samaan (Migration) [2023] AATA 2846 (3 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Iyad Samaan

CASE NUMBER:  2305934

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/2071956 PNJ

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:3 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

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

Statement made on 03 August 2023 at 6:15pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – application was not properly made – application fee had not been paid – no determination has been made that the fee should be reduced –no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347, Schedule 2

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 Home Affairs, dated 27 April 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 28 April 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 6 July 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 Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 28 June 2023 inviting him to comment on the validity of the application for review. The applicant did not respond to the invitation.

5. 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

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

   Wendy Banfield
   Member