1703723 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2370

1703723 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2370 (18 September 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1703723

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Michael Judd

DATE:18 September 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 18 September 2017 at 2:21pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Applicant not in migration zone – No response to correspondence

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36 (2), 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa [in] August 2016.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

3. Under s.65(1) a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the prescribed criteria for the visa have been satisfied.

4. So far as is relevant to this matter, s.36 (2) of the Act provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia. This means that a protection visa may only be granted if the applicant is in Australia.

5. The Department of Immigration’s movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears that he left Australia [in] March 2017. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 11 July 2017 advising that its records showed that he is not in Australia and therefore could not be granted a protection visa and inviting the applicant to comment on the information. No response was received.  

6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the applicant is not in Australia. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2) and cannot be granted a protection visa.

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

   DECISION

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

   Michael Judd
   Member