Usman (Migration)

[2019] AATA 1816

Usman (Migration) [2019] AATA 1816 (22 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Sudiman Usman

CASE NUMBER:  1900904

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2017/45503

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:22 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 March 2019 at 11:35am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging B (Class WB) visa – prescribed fee has not been 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 14 January 2019, to refuse to grant a Bridging B (Class WB) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 14 January 2019. 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 4 February 2019. 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 5 March 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review appears not to be a valid application as the application fee has not been paid.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 19 March 2019.  The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s invitation.

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.

   Tania Flood
   Member