1503666 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for protection visas made by two applicants. The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically in relation to claims of significant harm and the operation of section 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which imposes a bar on further protection visa applications in certain circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Given previous applications, the Tribunal's consideration was confined to the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) for the first applicant, and for the second applicant, only the family unit criteria. The core legal issue was whether there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicants if they were removed from Australia, as required for a complementary protection claim.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. The reasoning applied the principles established in cases such as *SZGIZ v MIAC* and *AMA15 v MIBP*, which clarify the scope of section 48A and the Tribunal's ability to consider specific criteria in subsequent applications. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection ground, and therefore the visa could not be granted.