interest to exercise his powers under
section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 to
allow Mr. Elmi to make a further application
for a protection visa. Mr. Elmi’s solicitor was
advised of this on 17 August 1999, and
Mr. Elmi was personally notified on
18 August 1999.
On 1 May 2001, the State party informed the
Committee that the complainant had
voluntarily departed Australia and
subsequently “withdrew” his complaint
against the State party. It explains that the
complainant had lodged his second protection
visa application on 24 August 1999. On
22 October 1999, Mr. Elmi and his adviser
attended an interview with an officer of the
Department. The Minister of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs in a decision dated
2 March 2000 was satisfied that the
complainant was not a person to whom
Australia has protection obligations under the
Refugee Convention and refused to grant him
a protection visa. This decision was affirmed
on appeal by the Principal Tribunal Members.
The State party advises the Committee that his
new application was comprehensively
assessed in light of new evidence which arose
following the Committee’s consideration. The
Tribunal was not satisfied as to the
complainant’s credibility and did not accept
that he is who he says he is - the son of a
leading elder of the Shikal clan.
Author’s response
N/A
Committee’s decision
In light of the complainant’s voluntary
departure no further action was requested
under follow-up.
State party
AZERBAIJAN
Case
Pelit, 281/2005
Nationality and country of removal
if applicable
Turkish to Turkey
110
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents