2104176 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 4740

2104176 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4740 (4 October 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr MANOJ NANDA (MARN: 1568823)

CASE NUMBER:  2104176

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:4 October 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 October 2022 at 2:30pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – applicant left Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65

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 26 February 2021 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 Lebanon, applied for the visa on 10 December 2019.

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 27 October 2021. 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 did not respond.

6. 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.

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

   DECISION

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

   Tania Flood
   Member