1823422 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5797

1823422 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5797 (21 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1823422

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Thailand

MEMBER:Nathan Goetz

DATE:21 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 21 June 2019 at 11:25am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – 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. On 15 June 2016 the applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Thailand, applied for a protection visa.

2. On 1 August 2018 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

3. On 13 August 2018 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the refusal decision.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears that he left Australia [in] February 2019. 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. The Tribunal never received a response from the applicant.

8. 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.

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

   DECISION

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

    Nathan Goetz
    Member