1609593 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Sunni Muslim from Libya, sought a protection visa. He initially applied in December 2012, claiming fear of persecution based on his religion and imputed political opinion, specifically being perceived as a Ghaddafi supporter due to a government scholarship, despite his opposition to the regime and the subsequent anarchic state of Libya. This application was refused and affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). He reapplied in November 2015 after travelling to Libya, again claiming fear of persecution due to the volatile situation and the rise of militia groups. This second application was also refused. The matter came before the Tribunal for review.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa), the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also considered the applicant's claims regarding his imputed political opinion as a former Ghaddafi supporter and his opposition to militia rule, as well as his religious beliefs and the general instability in Libya.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant policy guidelines and country information. It noted that the applicant had voluntarily returned to Libya in 2015 and that his social media activity was limited. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not find that the applicant met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), as it was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.