1729319 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 2238

1729319 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2238 (6 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1729319

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Mary Urquhart

DATE:6 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 06 May 2020 at 12:14pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – applicant left Australia – 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 13 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa (Safe Haven) under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Sri Lanka applied for the visa on 15 October 2015.

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] May 2018. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant via their authorised representative on 21 February 2020 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 6 March 2020.

6. On 6 March 2020 the Tribunal received a response from the authorised representative [company]. The response indicated the representative was unable to obtain further instructions and advised the Department of Home Affairs had confirmed the applicant’s departure from Australia.

7. 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.

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

   DECISION

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

   Mary Urquhart
   Member