2202053 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a protection visa application made by the first and second named applicants, who were citizens of Brazil. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically the requirement that they be physically present in Australia. The third named applicant's situation also came before the Tribunal, concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The primary legal issue for the first and second named applicants was whether they satisfied the criterion under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) that they be a non-citizen in Australia. For the third named applicant, the issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review their matter, given the nature of the decision (or lack thereof) at the time the review application was lodged.

The Tribunal, constituted by Member Amanda Goodier, found that the first and second named applicants did not satisfy the criterion of being in Australia, as movement records indicated they had departed Australia in October 2023. Despite being invited to comment, the applicants did not respond to the Tribunal's notification of this information. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant them protection visas. Regarding the third named applicant, the Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction because no reviewable decision, as defined by the *Migration Act* and *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), had been made at the time the review application was lodged, meaning the application was not properly made.