//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:cth/IRTA/1996/8129
defendant. Decision affirmed
The Immigration Review Tribunal affirmed the refusal of a Territorial Asylum visa to Mr Arisman because he had not been granted territorial asylum by the Minister—a mandatory requirement for this visa. The Tribunal also clarified that it could not itself grant territorial asylum or send the matter back to the Department for that purpose, as these actions were outside its legal powers.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
This is an application for a Territorial Asylum Class BE (subclass 800) visa by Mr Arisman.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
On 8 November 1996 I affirmed the refusal of the visa. These are my reasons for so doing.
Mr Arisman is an Indonesian citizen. He was born on 10 October 1964. He came to Australia on 15 September 1991. He made the relevant primary application on 10 July 1995.
The relevant legislation is the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations, and the relevant provisions include Part 800 of Schedule 2 of those Regulations.
A mandatory criterion for the grant of this visa is set out in part 800.211, which requires that, at the time of application, the Applicant has been granted territorial asylum in Australia by instrument of a Minister.
A brief discussion of the application of Part 800 is set out in re Kalkan, IRT decision N96/00411, 28 October 1996. Further discussion is set out in re Siri Chand,IRT decision N96/00124, 31 October 1996.
I have considered the relevant Tribunal file N96/00207 and Departmental file N93/520144 and I have heard evidence from the Applicant.
There is no evidence that the Applicant has ever been granted territorial asylum in Australia by instrument of a Minister. Mr Arisman suggested that a letter from the Tribunal indicating the hearing date might be such an instrument. This, unfortunately, suggests that he may not have properly been advised by his migration agent.
I find that the applicant had not, at the time of application, been granted territorial asylum in Australia by instrument of a Minister.
I note that it has been submitted that the application might be viewed as an application for territorial asylum simpliciter, or for a concurrent application for territorial asylum and for the visa. I have no
jurisdiction to review failure to consider or grant territorial asylum. See ss 346 and 349 of the Migration Act.
I note that it has been submitted that I should remit the application to the Department 'to ensure that section 54, sub-section (1) can be complied with'. I have no such power: see the references to the Tribunal's power to issue directions in the Migration Act s349(2) and Migration Regulations clause 4.15.
Decision affirmed