1403615 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3507

1403615 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3507 (12 October 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1403615

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Giles Short

DATE:12 October 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 12 October 2015 at 1:14pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

1. On 17 January 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated [in] January 2014, refusing to grant him a protection visa. 

2. So far as is relevant to this matter, subsection 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 provides that an applicant for a protection visa must be a non-citizen in Australia.  This means that a protection visa may only be granted if the applicant is in Australia.  The Department of Immigration’s movement records indicate that the applicant left Australia [in] March 2014 and that he is not in Australia.

3. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant in accordance with section 424A of the Migration Act on 8 October 2015 inviting him to comment on or to respond to the information that he was not in Australia and that he therefore could not be granted a protection visa. On the same day the applicant’s representatives responded stating that they had been informed by the Department of Immigration that their client had departed Australia [in] March 2014 and that, as they had no instructions from their client, they would not be responding to the Tribunal’s section 424A invitation.

4. I am satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the applicant is not in Australia. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of subsection 36(2) of the Migration Act and cannot be granted a protection visa.

5. Having reached this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the applicant’s substantive case for the grant of the visa.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   Giles Short
   Senior Member