1705427 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3171

1705427 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3171 (24 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1705427

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:24 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 24 July 2017 at 3:05pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection Visa – Malaysia – Applicant did not attend hearing – Where applicant claims not to have receive request for additional information – No supporting evidence provided – Application dismissed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 426A(1A)(b), 426(B)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 on 6 March 2017 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. On 11 July 2017 the Tribunal dismissed the application under s.426A(1A)(b) of the Act as the applicant did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3.    The applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision and the reasons for the decision, in accordance with s.426B(5). The applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14 day period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4.    The applicant applied for reinstatement of the application within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.

5.    On 5 July 2017 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that he would be unable to attend his hearing scheduled for 11 July 2017 as he had a medical appointment that day and asked that the Tribunal re-schedule the hearing.  At 2.41pm on 5 July 2017 the Tribunal responded to the applicant requesting that he provide a letter from his doctor substantiating his medical appointment on 11 July 2017. The applicant did not respond.

6.    In his email response to the Tribunal’s dismissal decision received on 24 July 2017, the applicant sought reinstatement of his application indicating he did not receive the Tribunal’s email of 5 July 2017 requesting more information until after the hearing as he did not have internet connection for more than one week as where he is living was getting changed from ADSL to NBN[1].

[1] AAT file, folio 29.

7.    The Tribunal considered the applicant’s explanation and notes that no evidence of the conversion to the NBN was provided nor did the applicant provide the requested evidence of his medical appointment.

8.    The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

DECISION

9.    The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Linda Holub
Member