1918969 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2283

1918969 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2283 (11 June 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1918969

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Rwanda

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:11 June 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 June 2024 at 3:56pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – Rwanda – applicants not in Australia – outside of migration zone – 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 Home Affairs on 18 June 2019 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 Rwanda, applied for the visa on 8 March 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 on[date] March 2024. 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 applicant responded to the effect that he had never applied for a review, rather he sought to be relocated. His response was abusive in its terms and not responsive to the issue raised in the Tribunal’s correspondence.

6. The applicant was invited to attend a video hearing on 27 June 2024. He responded to that hearing invitation by repeating his request that the Tribunal leave him alone. He reiterated his belief that he had not applied for a review by the Tribunal, rather he had sought to have his application transferred to another country or the United Nations. He stated that he feared for his life in Australia, not Rwanda. He asked that the Tribunal not send him further email correspondence.

7. It is clear from the Tribunal file that the applicant has become increasingly frustrated with the processes relating to his application for the protection visa and the subsequent review application. It is also clear that the Tribunal’s ongoing correspondence about the review application is causing the applicant distress. Although the Tribunal’s correspondence dated 30 April 2024 included a link to the withdrawal form, the applicant has not withdrawn his application.

8. The applicant’s correspondence to the Tribunal clearly indicates that he does not wish to attend the hearing or receive further correspondence from the Tribunal and that he is not seeking protection in Australia. In these circumstances, and pursuant to s 425(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

9. 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.

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

    DECISION

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

    Alison Murphy
    Member