1515803 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in December 2007, sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant had previously applied for a protection visa in July 2008, which was refused by the Departmental Delegate in October 2008. This decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) in February 2009, and an appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court was unsuccessful in August 2009. A further protection visa application was lodged in April 2014, which was deemed valid due to the decision in *SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2013] FCAFC 71. The matter before the Tribunal concerned this later application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1994* and Schedule 2 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. Specifically, given the prior refusal of a protection visa application, the Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant qualified for a protection visa based on the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This criterion applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal from Australia, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims under the Refugee Convention had already been determined and refused in previous proceedings. Therefore, the current application was limited to the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding fear of harm due to religious beliefs as a member of an underground church, and also claims of harm from debt collectors and affected residents related to a family business. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence and raised credibility issues. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.