1608643 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of Ms A and her family, who are nationals of the United States of America. The applicants sought protection in Australia, claiming they feared persecution upon return to the USA due to their race (white Americans), nationality, and age, as well as economic hardship and a lack of government support.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, nationality, or membership of a particular social group (age), and whether they would suffer significant harm if returned to the United States. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to assess the credibility of the claims that white, middle-aged Americans face persecution or discrimination in the USA, and whether economic hardship or the inability to access government assistance constituted grounds for protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Regarding race, the Tribunal noted that white people constitute the majority in the USA, and the applicant could not provide specific instances of racial persecution, nor any country information to support such a claim. The claim based on nationality was similarly dismissed, as the applicant's inability to obtain financial assistance was attributed to her husband's student status, not her nationality. The Tribunal found the age-based claim unconvincing, particularly given the first applicant's own disqualification from a permanent visa in Australia due to her age, and the general unemployment rates in both countries. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicants possessed assets in Australia and that numerous government assistance programs were available in the USA, negating claims of destitution or lack of support. The Tribunal also considered the significant delay in lodging the protection visa application, which suggested the claims were not genuine or urgent.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958.