1611482 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision regarding a protection visa. The applicant, a Rwandan citizen, claimed to be a Tutsi and a survivor of the 1994 genocide. She alleged that she had given testimony against individuals involved in the genocide in Rwandan "Gacaca" courts, which led to harassment and threats against her and her family by Hutu extremists. She also expressed fear of harm from anti-Tutsi elements within the Rwandan government and police. The applicant and her family had arrived in Australia on student visas and subsequently applied for protection visas.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This involved determining if Australia had protection obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, specifically whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, membership of a particular social group, or imputed political opinion. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of being a Tutsi, a survivor of the genocide, and her participation in the Gacaca courts, which she stated led to threats and harassment from Hutu extremists. She feared that these extremists, along with elements within the Rwandan government and police, would harm her and her family upon their return to Rwanda. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of these claims and determine if they established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's delay in leaving Rwanda and the evidence of medical treatment, which were factors to be considered in assessing the genuineness of her fear.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.