Singh (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1761

Singh (Migration) [2017] AATA 1761 (11 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Parmjit Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1717066

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OSF2015/077667

MEMBER:Margie Bourke

DATE:11 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 September 2017 at 11:01am

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa – Application fee not paid within prescribed time period

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347(1)
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 4.10, r 4.13

CASES
Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364

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 Immigration, dated 1 August 2017, to refuse to grant a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 4 August 2017. 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. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 22 August 2017. 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.

4. The applicant lodged an application review form but no payment was received by the tribunal with the form. Tribunal staff officers attempted to contact the applicant via telephone on 7 August 2017, 14 August 2017 and 17 August 2017, but were unable to speak to the applicant or leave a message as the line was constantly engaged. 

5. The tribunal sent the applicant a letter dated 23 August 2017 to his nominated email address inviting him to comment on whether he had made a valid application as an application fee was not made within the time limit for lodging the application.  The tribunal did not receive a response from the applicant to its letter dated 23 August 2017.  The tribunal did not receive any payment from the applicant, or any application for reduction of the fee.

6. 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.

   Margie Bourke
   Member