2018394 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1476

2018394 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1476 (30 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Vaneet Kaur Chadha (MARN: 1686379)

CASE NUMBER:  2018394

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India

MEMBER:R Guemy

DATE:30 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 30 May 2024 at 10:50am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – India – applicants not in Australia – outside of migration zone –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 424A

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 dependant.

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 December 2020 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 23 December 2019.

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 left Australia on [date] June 2023. 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. The applicants are also no longer entitled to appear before the Tribunal (see s 425(3)).

6. Although the Tribunal retains a discretion to invite the applicants to a hearing, given that they are no longer in Australia and have presented no information or evidence to the Tribunal that they intend to return to Australia in the near future or that they have a valid visa that would give them permission to do so, the Tribunal has decided not to invite them to a hearing as it would not be an appropriate use of the Tribunal’s limited resources given that the applicants do not presently appear to be able to meet a critical requirement for the grant of the protection visa.

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.

   R Guemy
   Member