1603193 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of a first named applicant from Peru and her four dependants. The first applicant claimed she feared persecution due to being a vulnerable woman facing abuse, threats, and a custody dispute with her ex-partner, who she alleged would continue to harass her even if she relocated within South America. The Tribunal also considered the claims of the second to fifth named applicants, who were family members of the first applicant.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first named applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which relates to obligations under the Refugees Convention, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). The Tribunal also had to determine if the remaining applicants qualified for a protection visa as members of the same family unit as the first applicant, pursuant to sections 36(2)(b) and (c) of the Act and regulation 1.12 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal found that the first named applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, indicating a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the second to fifth named applicants were members of the same family unit as the first applicant, as defined by regulation 1.12. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing that the first named applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a) and that the other applicants satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their family unit membership.