Silva Ferreira (Migration)

[2022] AATA 4520

Silva Ferreira (Migration) [2022] AATA 4520 (14 November 2022)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mrs Marinete Eunice Silva Ferreira

CASE NUMBER:  2210440

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          PNJ

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:14 November 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 14 November 2022 at 1:35pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa –fee has not been paid – no jurisdiction

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 Home Affairs, dated 16 July 2022, 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 18 July 2022. 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 27 September 2022 . 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 3 October 2022 to invite comment on the validity of the application for review, and to do so, in writing, by 17 October 2022.

5. The Tribunal did not receive a response, either from the applicant or on behalf of the applicant, right up to the time of making this decision. 

6. It is recorded on the Tribunal’s notes in relation to this matter that an official of the Tribunal contacted an authorised recipient on 19 July 2022, informing him that an application fee was required for a valid application. The authorised recipient responded to the official in a antagonistic manner, described the application fee as ‘criminal’ and said the official wasted his time. The call occurred within the prescribed period for a fee application fee to be paid.

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.

   Brendan Darcy
   Member