Singh (Migration)

[2024] AATA 325

Singh (Migration) [2024] AATA 325 (22 February 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Sarojini Devi Singh

CASE NUMBER:  2305768

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/1429336

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:22 February 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 February 2024 at 10:07pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – application fee not paid – standing to apply – specified persons entitled to apply – no response to tribunal’s correspondence – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)(b), (2)(c)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 4.10

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 23 March 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 25 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. 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 person who is entitled to apply to us in relation to this decision is parent / spouse / de facto partner / child / brother / sister of the visa applicant(s) who is an Australian citizen or permanent resident and whose particulars were included in the visa application: s.347(2)(c).

5. In this case the fee has not been paid and nor has the standing issue been rectified. The Tribunal has corresponded with the applicant on two occasions noting these defects. The applicant has not responded.

6. Given the non response, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to assess the jurisdiction of the application.

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.

   Sean Baker
   Member