1815929 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 1660

1815929 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1660 (5 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1815929

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   United Kingdom

MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson

DATE:5 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 05 May 2020 at 9:19am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – United Kingdom – applicants left Australia – no response to tribunal’s communication – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 65(1)

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants, who claim to be citizens of United Kingdom, applied for the visas on 23 March 2018.

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 applicants are not in Australia. It appears that they all left Australia [in] April 2019. The Tribunal wrote to the applicants on 24 February 2020 advising that its records showed that they are not in Australia and therefore could not be granted protection visas and inviting the applicants to comment on the information. At the time of this decision no response has been received.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the applicants are not in Australia. Therefore, the applicants do not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2) and cannot be granted protection visas.

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

   DECISION

8. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

   Hugh Sanderson
   Member