1918048 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 2183

1918048 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2183 (3 June 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1918048

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Papua New Guinea

MEMBER:Meredith Jackson

DATE:3 June 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 03 June 2020 at 10:48am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Papua New Guinea – 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 14 June 2019 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 Papua New Guinea, applied for the visas on 15 November 2017.

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. The Department of Home Affairs records which are available to the Tribunal indicate that the applicants are not in Australia. It appears that both applicants left Australia [in] November 2019 and do not hold current Australian visas.

6. The Tribunal wrote to the applicants on 25 February 2020 advising that the Department’s records show they were not in Australia and that the applicants did not have visas that enabled them to return, and hence they could not be granted protection visas. The applicants were invited to comment on the information by 10 March 2020. No response to the invitation has been received by the Tribunal.

7. 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.

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

   DECISION

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

   Meredith Jackson
   Member