2009486 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, but the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The dispute arose because the applicant had left Australia, and the Tribunal's records indicated he was no longer physically present in the country.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, specifically the requirement under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) that the applicant must be a non-citizen in Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided a reasonable excuse for failing to attend a scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal reasoned that a protection visa can only be granted if the applicant is in Australia. Movement records showed the applicant had departed Australia in March 2023. Although the applicant claimed to have returned to Indonesia due to family illness and death, and later stated he missed a hearing due to technical issues and not receiving an email, the Tribunal found these explanations did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his absence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not in Australia and therefore did not meet the essential criterion for a protection visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.