2118858 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1921

2118858 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1921 (3 June 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Noeline  Smart

CASE NUMBER:  2118858

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Gregory Hanson

DATE:3 June 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 03 June 2024 at 2:21pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – applicant left Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65

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 3 December 2021 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 the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, applied for the visas on 20 October 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) of the Act 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 and that they departed Australia [in] January 2024. 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. No response was received from the applicants.

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.

   Gregory Hanson
   Member