2201723 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1863

2201723 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1863 (4 June 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Abu Siddque

CASE NUMBER:  2201723

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Bangladesh

MEMBER:Suseela Durvasula

DATE:4 June 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 June 2024 at 4:06pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – Bangladesh – 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 27 January 2022 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 Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 11 February 2020.

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 and he left Australia on [date] September 2023.

6. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s 424A of the Act, advising that its records showed he is not in Australia and therefore could not be granted a protection visa. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the information. The applicant did not comment on, or respond to, this letter within the prescribed period. The Tribunal has therefore proceeded to make a decision based on the information before it, without taking further steps to obtain the applicant’s views on the information.

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.

   Suseela Durvasula
   Member