SINGH (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2621

SINGH (Migration) [2023] AATA 2621 (8 August 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Harpreet SINGH

CASE NUMBER:  2306510

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/2008130

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:8 August 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra

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

Statement made on 08 August 2023 at 4:21pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa – Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) – application made on last day of prescribed period but full fee not paid and no request for reduced fee – applicant’s attempt to pay – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 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 19 April 2023, to refuse to grant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 10 May 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 10 May 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 1 June 2023 inviting him to comment on the validity of the application for review. The applicant responded to the invitation on 7 June 2023 and made the following submission:

   This is harpreet singh i am just informing you that i was applied before but the online service is down it can processed my payment and i couldn't complete my application and i received invalid notification from automated system and after i done later when system out of maintenance and working properly.

5. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response and notes a receipt for the payment of $1,011.00 made on 10 May 2023 with the review application was issued on 11 May 2023. The amount paid by the applicant was not the full fee and there is no evidence the correct fee was paid within the prescribed period.

6. Therefore, 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.

   Wendy Banfield
   Member