1608928 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for Protection visas by two Tongan citizens who had resided in Australia for approximately 20 years. The first applicant claimed to have suffered inhuman treatment and mental harassment in Tonga, and that she would not receive adequate protection or healthcare upon return due to her age and various illnesses, including depression. She also feared arbitrary deprivation of life and degrading treatment. The second applicant, her husband, initially made no claims but later indicated he feared returning to Tonga due to his health problems and the perceived lower standard of medical services available there compared to Australia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia had protection obligations to the applicants under the relevant criteria for a Protection visa.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of the criteria for a Protection visa, including the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The latter criterion requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 56, policy guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were citizens of Tonga and were outside their country of nationality. However, it found no evidence that the applicants met the refugee criterion, nor did it find that they satisfied the complementary protection criterion. Specifically, the Tribunal concluded that there was an adequate level of healthcare available in Tonga and that the applicants had not demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return. The Tribunal also noted that there was no suggestion that the applicants satisfied s.36(2) of the Act as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a Protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.