1511304 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by three applicants from Brazil. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether any of the applicants were entitled to protection as refugees or on complementary protection grounds. The applicants had consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the review based on the material in their files, without providing oral evidence at a hearing.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, which relates to protection obligations under the Refugee Convention, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection based on a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented and relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that the first applicant was not a non-citizen and therefore ineligible for a protection visa. The other two applicants did not claim a real chance of persecution for any of the five Convention-related reasons, but rather sought Ministerial consideration due to the needs of the first applicant, who was an Australian national and a minor. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of persecution in Brazil, nor that they met the complementary protection criterion, as the "real risk" test for significant harm was considered to impose the same standard as the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

Despite affirming the decision not to grant the protection visas, the Tribunal referred the matter to the Minister, highlighting the interests of the two Australian national children, particularly the minor first applicant, for potential non-binding intervention under section 417 of the Act.