1314887 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Sri Lankan national of Sinhalese ethnicity and Catholic faith. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Sri Lanka due to his father's past political activities with the UNP and his own involvement in a village protest against a government proposal. The applicant alleged that his family had lost police protection and faced harassment from government supporters and authorities due to his father's opposition to government policies affecting local fishermen. He further claimed that upon returning to Sri Lanka, he feared arrest and death by the police, CID, EPDP, and SLA, whom he alleged were seeking him and were against his family.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons outlined in Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, as incorporated into Australian law by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant faced "serious harm" and "systematic and discriminatory conduct" that was either official, officially tolerated, or uncontrollable by the Sri Lankan authorities. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided, including his written statement, country information on Sri Lanka, and departmental reports. While accepting the applicant's nationality, ethnicity, and religion, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims of persecution were largely based on past events related to his father's political activities and a protest that occurred in 2012. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would personally face persecution upon return to Sri Lanka, nor that the Sri Lankan authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him from any potential harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).