Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog

Prescribed fee

payment of prescribed feeAn application to the AAT has to be accompanied by the prescribed fee pursuant to section 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act. Despite my initial view “how hard can it be?” there have been at least two cases on this topic this year!

Fee reduction application

In the first case, Hanna v Minister [2023] FCA 604, the Applicant applied for a fee reduction at the time application was lodged. No actual fee was paid (in the prescribed period) and the Tribunal found it was without jurisdiction. On appeal the argument was that no fee was payable until the Tribunal decided if there would be a fee reduction.

Cheeseman J noted that: “In this appeal, the appellant had to navigate the twin shoals of the 2011 amendment, by which the possibility of outright waiver of the prescribed fee had been removed, and his failure to pay at least 50% of the prescribed fee within the prescribed period.”

Her Honour did not accept the Appellant’s arguments, but left open the question about what would have happened if 50% of the fee had in fact been paid. I wouldn’t advise testing it!

Payment of wrong amount

In the second case, BXS20 v Minister for Immigration [2023] FCAFC 20 the wrong amount was paid, leaving a shortfall of $58. That shortfall was eventually paid, but after the expiry of the prescribed period. Once again, the AAT treated the application as invalid (and it had no jurisdiction).

Although the Full Court considered the relevant cases on payments (by credit card) and the meaning of “accompanied” (which has some flexibility), the preferable construction of 347(1) was that both lodgement and payment had to occur in the prescribed period. In a separate (but not dissenting) judgment, Stewart J threw out a lifeline for future applicants when he observed that rectification (which wasn’t argued) acts retrospectively. So, had been rectification been raised, depending on the facts, the case may have succeeded.

Conclusion

I certainly understand that the prescribed fee is a considerable amount for some applicants, but paying the correct amount is a lot cheaper than fighting about it in the courts afterwards.

Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.

Oscar and Walter

In considering whether or not to revoke a visa cancellation, regard has to be had to the considerations contained in a published  Ministerial Direction. There are a number of primary and also "other" considerations (about ties to Australia and impediments to return) which have to be taken into account. One of the more unusual factors that I have seen raised in argument was in Pearson v Minister...

read more

84 and counting

Merits review of character cancellation decisions in the AAT run to a strict case management timetable which is set out in section 500 Migration Act. It is a requirement that the tribunal give a decision within 84 days of the commencement of proceedings (500(6L)(2)). Anyone who has done any litigation would realise that is really fast tracked case management. It is not very much time to have a...

read more

Alien by the barest of threads

The title of this post is borrowed from the title of a 2009 paper by University of Melbourne academic, Michelle Foster. It was also prompted after reading the recent High Court decision in Chetcuti v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] HCA 25. Chetcuti was born in Malta in 1945 and moved to Australia in 1948 where (apart from a couple of months in Malta in 1958) he lived continuously. As a result...

read more

Ministerial Powers

Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 213 is a long (5 judgements each of 100's of paragraphs) decision of the Full Federal Court about the exercise of the Minister's personal discretionary powers to grant a visa (sometimes referred to in the media as "God powers"). There are several sections of the Migration Act which confer on...

read more