1503817 (Refugee)

The applicant, a female student and activist from Sudan, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from Sudanese authorities and her family. The dispute centred on whether she qualified for protection under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee or under complementary protection provisions. The case was heard by Nicole Burns, a member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion due to her past and potential future involvement with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North (SPLM-N), and whether she could access effective state protection in Sudan. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider new claims of fear of serious harm, including honour killing, from her family and former husband as a single mother. A preliminary issue involved the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding her place of origin, which the Tribunal needed to resolve to assess her background and potential risks.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that her parents originated from South Kordofan, a conflict-affected area, despite an earlier inconsistency on a partner visa application. Drawing on country information from DFAT and the UK Home Office, the Tribunal found that individuals associated with or perceived to be associated with armed opposition groups like the SPLM-N face a high risk of discrimination and violence from Sudanese authorities, including arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant's imputed political opinion was the essential and significant reason for the harm she feared and that state protection would not be available to her, particularly given that South Kordofan is not under effective state control and internal relocation to other parts of Sudan was unlikely to be safe.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and therefore satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958*. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies this criterion.