1513736 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a Sri Lankan national and his wife. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Sri Lanka due to his race, his real and imputed political opinion as a human rights activist, political activist, and journalist, and his membership in a particular social group, specifically a royal dynasty. He alleged that he had received threats from Sinhala Buddhist activists and politicians after publishing articles and a report detailing human rights abuses against Tamils. The applicant also claimed to have been invited to join a political party and had been active as a Tamil activist since 2006. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information, and to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive background, including his service as a government medical officer, his private practice, his writings on the Tamil crisis, and his alleged royal heritage. It noted that the applicant had received threats after publishing a report to international bodies concerning human rights abuses. However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that it was not satisfied that either applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas. The Tribunal also noted that as the applicants did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or (aa), they were also unable to satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(b) or (c) and therefore could not be granted the visa.