1411916 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, a husband and wife, who claimed to fear harm if returned to India. The applicants had previously applied for protection visas, which were refused. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of departmental policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically concerning claims of harm based on political opinion and complementary protection. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of section 48A of the Act, which imposes a bar on further protection visa applications by non-citizens in the migration zone after a previous refusal.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 48A, as interpreted by the Full Federal Court in *SZGIZ v. MIAC* (2013) 212 FCR 235, confined its power to consider only claims that did not duplicate earlier unsuccessful applications. Consequently, the Tribunal found it could not consider the applicants' claims under the Refugee Convention criterion in section 36(2)(a) of the Act, but could proceed to consider claims under the complementary protection provisions in section 36(2)(aa). After considering the evidence and the relevant guidelines, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either section 36(2)(a) or (aa), nor under sections 36(2)(b) or (c).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.