Tuiseke (Migration)

Tuiseke (Migration) [2024] AATA 4054 (8 October 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Dallanz Tuiseke
CASE NUMBER:  2420755
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/3364342 PNJ
MEMBER:P. Maishman
DATE:8 October 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 08 October 2024 at 2:21pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – applicable fee not paid – no jurisdiction
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 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

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 28 June 2024, to refuse to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 June 2024. 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.
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 6 September 2024. 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.
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
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
P. Maishman
Member

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision concerning a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. The applicant, Tuiseke, sought review of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application for review. This question turned on whether the prescribed fee for the application for review had been paid.

The Tribunal found that the prescribed fee had not been paid, and no determination had been made or requested for a reduction of that fee. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the application for review was not a valid application, and therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

The Tribunal ordered that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Reasons for decision

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 The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.P. MaishmanMember

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established