1800001 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 1937

1800001 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1937 (31 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1800001

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia

MEMBER:Dr Colin Huntly

DATE:31 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 31 May 2021 at 9:04am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – applicant departed Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 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 18 December 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 Malaysia, applied for the visa on 13 October 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 he left Australia [in] December 2020.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 3 May 2021 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 by 17 May 2021.  As at the date of the decision, no response has been received 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) 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.

   Dr Colin Huntly
   Member