1600397 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the applicants, citizens of Albania, protection visas. The applicants had previously applied for and been refused protection visas, and a subsequent application to the Minister for intervention was also refused. Due to the operation of s.48A of the *Migration Act 1958*, the applicants were barred from making a further protection visa application unless it was on complementary protection grounds, which the court determined was permissible in this instance.

The legal issues before the court were whether the first named applicant met the complementary protection criteria, specifically whether he was a member of the Christian Democratic Party of Albania, actively involved in the Catholic church, founder of an Albanian Catholic Association, feared Muslim extremists, and if his family was anti-communist. Additionally, the court considered whether the second named applicant faced significant harm due to her Catholic faith, anti-communist family background, and the potential for her husband's enemies to target her. The court also had to assess claims that the second applicant had suffered a gang rape in 2009, leading to mental health issues that could not be treated in Albania, and that she and her family would face social stigma as a result.

The court's reasoning focused on the complementary protection provisions under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. It noted that the applicants' oral evidence differed from their statutory declarations, raising credibility issues. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the first applicant's political and religious affiliations and his fear of Muslim extremists, as well as the second applicant's personal history, including the alleged gang rape and its impact on her mental health and social standing. The court also examined the definition of "member of the same family unit" under s.5(1) of the Act and r.1.12 of the Regulations.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicants' claims, when considered individually and cumulatively, did not satisfy the complementary protection criteria. Consequently, the decision under review to refuse the protection visas was affirmed.