1318846 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a national of Sri Lanka. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Tribunal to affirm the delegate's refusal to grant the visa. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims against Sri Lanka as the country of origin for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) s 36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for complementary protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under s 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of suffering significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka, and whether any such harm would be inflicted by the Australian Government or could not be prevented by the Sri Lankan Government. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates the consideration of policy guidelines and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Immigration and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, acknowledging the difficulties applicants face in providing documentary proof and the importance of giving the benefit of the doubt to credible applicants. It considered two DFAT country information assessments regarding Sri Lanka, including a later report issued after the hearing, and found the relevant information to be materially the same as in earlier reports. The Tribunal was satisfied that the standard of interpreting at the hearing was reasonable and that the applicant had communicated effectively. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2) and that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied the criteria by being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.