Somnam (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5055

Somnam (Migration) [2020] AATA 5055 (21 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sane Somnam

CASE NUMBER:  2012236

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2020/1880550

MEMBER:Tim Connellan

DATE:21 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 21 September 2020 at 1:04pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging C (Class WC) visa – Subclass 030 (Bridging C) – applicable fee not paid – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, s 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. The applicant lodged an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 22 July 2020, to cancel the applicant’s Bridging C (Class WC) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 July 2020. 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 12 August 2020. 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 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

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

   Tim Connellan
   Member