1711504 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 2118

1711504 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2118 (11 May 2020)	Administrative Appeals Tribunal
AUSTRALIA 1.1-. ji‘,,W=ii;:«((OL

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:  Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1711504

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:  Saudi Arabia

MEMBER:  Rodger Shanahan

DATE:  11 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:  The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the

applicant a protection visa.

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – Saudi Arabia – applicant not in Australia – care for sick mother –no medical evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65

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 and Border Protection on 23 May 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 Saudi Arabia, applied for the visa on 8 July 2015.

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

3. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears that he left Australia [in] May 2020. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant 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.

7. The applicant responded by email on 7 March 2020 saying that he had to return to Saudi Arabia at the request of his mother who was having [surgery] and wanted him to return to be with her. No medical evidence has been presented to support this claim, nor any reason why a sibling could not have supported his mother if she required it, nor most importantly how he has been able to return without incident for more than three months to the country in which he claimed there would be a real chance of him suffering serious harm if he returned. I therefore lend it little weight in explaining why he is currently living back in Saudi Arabia.

8. 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.

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

   DECISION

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

    Rodger Shanahan
    Member