ZAHRAN (Migration)

[2024] AATA 2973

ZAHRAN (Migration) [2024] AATA 2973 (16 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Miss HIDAYA ZAHRAN

VISA APPLICANTS:  Mr Mohammad ABU KHADIJEH
Ms Samar Zahran

CASE NUMBER:  2410472

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2024/2367482

MEMBER:Alan McMurran

DATE:16 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 16 August 2024 at 10:34am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Visitor (Class FA) visa – Subclass 600 (Visitor) – applicable fee not paid – correct application form not used – 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 Home Affairs, dated 2 May 2024, to refuse to grant Visitor (Class FA) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 3 May 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 11 July 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.

5. Tribunal information shows that the application fee was not paid before the prescribed period ended. On 22 July 2024, the Tribunal sent a natural justice letter to the applicant. The letter advised that as the application fee had not been paid, it was not a valid application. The applicant was invited to respond by 5 August 2024. The applicant did not respond.

6. The Tribunal finds that 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.

   Alan McMurran
   Member