1727122 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2768

1727122 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2768 (13 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1727122

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Indonesia

MEMBER:Justin Meyer

DATE:13 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 13 June 2018 at 12:15pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Indonesia – Not necessary to consider the applicant's substantive case – Applicant left Australia

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 431

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 2 November 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 Indonesia, applied for the visa on 12 May 2017.

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 she left Australia on 20 December 2017. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that its records showed that she 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.

   Justin Meyer
   Member