1930771 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 636

1930771 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 636 (13 March 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1930771

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India

MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin

DATE:13 March 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 March 2023 at 3:05pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – applicants left Australia – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – not necessary to consider substantive case – 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 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants, who claim to be citizens of India, applied for the visas on 17 November 2016.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Movement records indicate that the applicants are not in Australia. It appears that they left Australia [in] August 2022. The Tribunal wrote to the applicants 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.

5. The Tribunal has not received a response.

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.

   Lilly Mojsin
   Member