1500274 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a non-citizen. The applicant sought to establish that Australia had protection obligations towards them under either the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Tribunal, presided over by Member Gina Towney, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established claims that would engage Australia's protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's evidence and determining if there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also considered the operation of s.48A of the Act, which imposes a bar on further protection visa applications in certain circumstances, and relevant case law, including *SZGIZ v MIAC* and *AMA15 v MIBP*, which clarified the scope of this bar and the Tribunal's approach to considering different protection criteria.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established any of their claims. It noted that the applicant had not satisfied the refugee criterion and, in light of the authorities, limited its consideration to the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that they would suffer significant harm if returned to their country of origin. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.