1619088 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Sri Lankan national. The applicant claimed he would face persecution on return to Sri Lanka due to his alleged bisexuality, a custody dispute with his ex-wife and her family who supported the UNP political party, and the potential for harm as a failed asylum seeker. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information regarding the general security situation in Sri Lanka, the treatment of homosexual and bisexual individuals, and the circumstances of returnees and failed asylum seekers. The Tribunal applied the principles of credibility assessment, noting that while asylum seekers are generally given the benefit of the doubt, claims must be substantiated and are not accepted uncritically. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the Act, and the circumstances under which a real risk of such harm is not taken to exist, including the possibility of internal relocation or obtaining protection from authorities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution based on his political opinion or membership of a particular social group, nor did he face a real risk of significant harm upon return to Sri Lanka. This conclusion was reached after considering the applicant's claims individually and cumulatively, and assessing the evidence in relation to his alleged bisexuality, the custody dispute, and his status as a failed asylum seeker. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had family support in Sri Lanka, possessed skills for employment, and jointly owned property there, which contributed to the finding that he would not suffer significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under either the refugee or complementary protection provisions of the Act.