1927000 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2709

1927000 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2709 (11 July 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Katrina Feghali

CASE NUMBER:  1927000

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:11 July 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 July 2024 at 11:47am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Lebanon – applicant is not in 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 Home Affairs on 12 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant, who is a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 11 December 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] November 2023. 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.

6. At hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that he left Australia and returned to Lebanon only because his son was fighting for his life in hospital. He stated that he very much wanted to return to Australia, but that he did not have a visa that would allow him to do so. The applicant’s representative acknowledged that the applicant could not be granted the protection visa while outside Australia.

7. The Tribunal acknowledges the difficult circumstances in which the applicant returned to Lebanon. However it is not in dispute that the applicant is not in Australia and he does not hold a visa that would allow him to return. Therefore, he 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.

   Alison Murphy
   Member