2206630 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2061

2206630 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2061 (29 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Nizam Jazeel C Nijamudeen (MARN: 1382750)

CASE NUMBER:  2206630

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Jennifer Ermert

DATE:29 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 29 May 2024 at 12:54pm

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

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), 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 2 May 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 Sri Lanka, applied for the visa on 15 August 2016.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Movement records indicate that the applicant is not in Australia. It appears that he left Australia [in] September 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 by 15 May 2024.  The applicant did not respond by the due date, nor has the Tribunal received any update from his representative. 

4. As the applicant failed to respond to the invitation to comment within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without inviting the applicant to a hearing.  In this case the information before the Tribunal indicates the applicant departed Australia 8 months ago.  He does not hold a visa that would allow him to return to Australia and he cannot be granted the protection visa while he is outside Australia.  In these circumstances the Tribunal considers it is appropriate to make a decision on the review without inviting the applicant to a hearing.

5. 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.

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

DECISION

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

Jennifer Ermert
Member