Tellitu (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1937

Tellitu (Migration) [2017] AATA 1937 (11 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Andre Tellitu

CASE NUMBER:  1722659

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/2750269 PNJ

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:11 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 11 October 2017 at 3:06pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – Relevant fee not paid – Application cannot be withdrawn

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 347

Migration Regulations 1994, r 4.10, 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 September 2017, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 22 September 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 September 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. On 26 September 2017, Tribunal wrote to the applicant to invite him to comment on the validity of the application for review as the application fee had not been paid and the application had not been made on the approved form. The applicant contacted the Tribunal on 26 September and again on 9 October by email.  In his most recent contact, he indicated his desire to withdraw the application so that he can lodge a new visa application. An officer of the Tribunal advised him that he cannot withdraw an application if it is found to be invalid. 

5. 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

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

   Meena Sripathy
   Member