1729689 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2588

1729689 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2588 (4 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1729689

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia

MEMBER:K. Chapman

DATE:4 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 04 June 2018 at 10:04am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Applicant not within 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 20 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 Malaysia, applied for the visa on 29 August 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) of the Act 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 on 15 February 2018. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that its records showed he is not in Australia and therefore could not be granted a protection visa, inviting his comment on the information. As at the date of this decision there has been no response from the applicant.

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) of the Act and cannot be granted a protection visa.

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

   DECISION

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

   K. Chapman
   Member