2013056 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1910

2013056 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1910 (30 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2013056

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Indonesia

MEMBER:Khanh Hoang

DATE:30 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 30 May 2024 at 3:55pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – applicant left Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 424A

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 11 August 2020 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 Indonesia, applied for the visa on 25 June 2018.

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] July 2023. On 1 May 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s 424A advising that its records showed that he is not in Australia and therefore could not be granted a protection visa and invited the applicant to comment on the information. The Tribunal advised the applicant that he should respond in writing by 15 May 2024.

6. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s invitation to comment. He did not request an extension of time in which to provide comments or a response.

7. 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.

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.

   Khanh Hoang
   Member