1617797 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Romania, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on his claims of fear of harm upon return to Romania, stemming from both a former neighbour and the country's healthcare system. The applicant also highlighted his long residence in Australia and his close family ties to Australian citizens as grounds for compassionate consideration. The matter was heard by a member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia, he would suffer significant harm, thus engaging complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim of harm from a former neighbour, accepting that a relationship had existed and that the neighbour had threatened and harassed him prior to his departure for Australia. However, the Tribunal found that given the eleven years that had elapsed since the relationship ended and the lack of direct evidence of ongoing contact, it was unlikely that the neighbour's conduct would continue to the level of serious harm upon his return. Regarding the applicant's health concerns and the Romanian healthcare system, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the poor standard of healthcare or the prevalence of COVID-19 constituted systematic and discriminatory harm, or that the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.