2210917 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 1941

2210917 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1941 (29 May 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2210917

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Philippines

MEMBER:Lisa Lo Piccolo

DATE:29 May 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 29 May 2024 at 12:52pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Philippines – applicant left Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, 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 28 July 2022 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 Philippines, applied for the visas on 6 May 2021.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Movement records indicate that the applicants are not in Australia. It appears that they left Australia [in] August 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. No response was received.

4. 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.

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

DECISION

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

Lisa Lo Piccolo

Member