Singh (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2931

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2931 (4 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Parminder Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1910224

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/278884

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:4 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 June 2019 at 3:51pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – no request for fee reduction – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 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. The applicant lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 17 April 2019, to cancel the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 24 April 2019. 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 r.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 r.4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under r.4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision.

4. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 1 May 2019. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

5. The application for review was not accompanied by the prescribed fee nor was it accompanied by an application for the reduction of the fee on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed fee was not paid by 1 May 2019.

6. On 6 May 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on the validity of his application for review in writing by 20 May 2019. This letter was sent to him by email on 6 May 2019. The email was not returned to the Tribunal undelivered. The Tribunal did not receive a response to this letter.

7. The Tribunal notes that the applicant appears to have a valid application for review (file number 1910240) currently before the Tribunal.

8. 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

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

   Linda Symons
   Member