1500275 (Refugee)

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of a Protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in December 2007 and applied for a Protection visa in September 2009, which was refused. Following a request for Ministerial Intervention, which was not exercised, the applicant made a further application for a Protection visa in April 2014. This later application was permitted to proceed based on the Federal Court's decision in *SZGIZ v MIAC* (2013) 212 FCR 235, allowing a further application under the complementary protection criterion where a prior application was refused before the commencement of that criterion. Consequently, the matter before the Tribunal concerned only the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically under the complementary protection criterion, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. The applicant claimed to have suffered physical and mental abuse from her ex-husband, feared further harm and inability to reclaim property and land upon return to China, and asserted that authorities would not provide protection due to her ex-husband's connections. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of these claims and determine if they established a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the Refugee Convention criterion (section 36(2)(a)) or the complementary protection criterion (section 36(2)(aa)). This lack of satisfaction meant the applicant did not meet the primary criteria for a Protection visa. As a result, the Tribunal also concluded that the applicant could not satisfy the secondary criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c), which relate to being a member of the same family unit as a person who meets the primary criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant Protection visas.