1505996 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant who feared returning to Ukraine due to the escalating war crisis and invasion by Russian separatists. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution based on her religious beliefs, which opposed war, and her fear of harm from Russian invading rebels. She also expressed concerns about her health and financial situation, arguing that Ukraine was unable to offer adequate protection and that relocation within the country was not a viable option. The Tribunal was required to assess these claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether she was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention or under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved determining if the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in Ukraine for a Convention reason, or as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal considered various documents, including the applicant's protection visa application, interview records, newspaper articles, and a report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The OHCHR report indicated that while conflict persisted in eastern Ukraine, it did not suggest a real chance of serious harm for individuals residing in areas like Vinnytsia, where the applicant lived. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future in Ukraine for a Convention reason. It also found that it could not be satisfied of a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, particularly without the benefit of a hearing.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, concluding that she did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).