1613287 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia in 2009, divorced her first husband in 2011 and remarried in 2013. She lodged her protection visa claim in September 2015. The applicant's history included experiencing domestic violence from her first husband, followed by further violence from her second husband after their inter-caste marriage led to estrangement from both families. Her second husband was eventually imprisoned for violence against her and subsequently deported to India. The applicant expressed a fear of resuming abuse and potential death if returned to India, citing her ex-husband, his family, and her own estranged family as sources of danger, and believing she would not receive protection from Indian authorities.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under the complementary protection provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved determining if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to India, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of past and ongoing threats from her former and current husbands and their families, and assess the availability of protection in India.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, noting her open and direct evidence, which was consistent with someone who had suffered significant trauma. Having concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal turned to consider the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant policy guidelines and country information. It was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa), based on the real risk of significant harm she faced upon return to India.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act*.