1619510 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a husband, wife, and their son, who are citizens of Mauritius. The primary applicant claimed that he and his wife had been threatened by a money lender and his gang in Mauritius due to an outstanding debt. He asserted that if they returned to Mauritius, they would face a real risk of being killed, kidnapped, or tortured by this individual and his associates, whom he believed were powerful and potentially beyond the protection of the authorities. The wife stated she had no independent protection claims, and no claims were advanced on behalf of their son.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants would be persecuted for one of the five Convention grounds upon return to Mauritius, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal, they would suffer significant harm, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of relevant guidelines and country information. The Tribunal found inconsistencies and a lack of credible detail regarding the alleged debt and threats. Specifically, the applicant provided vague details about the amount borrowed and the timing of the threats. Furthermore, the wife had visited Mauritius after the alleged threats occurred, and her account of the threats during that visit was also considered inconsistent. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Mauritius, noting the lack of specificity and credibility in the evidence presented.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). As a result, they were also unable to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c), meaning the protection visas could not be granted.