1723390 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 1602

1723390 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1602 (13 April 2021)

Corrigendum

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1723390

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE OF DECISION:  13 April 2021

DATE CORRIGENDUM

SIGNED:27 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision:

The following phrase on the cover page of the decision record:

DATE: 13 April 2020

Should be replaced with the following phrase:

DATE: 13 April 2021

Brendan Darcy
Member

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1723390

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:13 April 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 13 April 2021 at 11:06am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – applicants departed Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 36

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 1 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Pakistan), applied for the visa on 2 March 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. Movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears that he left Australia [in] December 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, and to do so by 12 April 2021. The Tribunal did not receive any responses or submissions to this invitation to comment, either the applicant or anyone on behalf of the applicant, right up to the time of making this decision.

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.

   Brendan Darcy
   Member