1619584 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking protection in Australia. The applicant, an elderly white South African man, and his wife had left South Africa due to concerns about their safety and lack of support networks. They claimed to have experienced burglaries, a dog poisoning, armed robbery, carjacking, and verbal abuse, attributing these incidents to systemic corruption and a perceived bias against white people within the South African police and justice systems.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the refugee criterion) or under section 36(2)(aa) (the complementary protection criterion). The refugee criterion requires a well-founded fear of persecution for specific reasons, while the complementary protection criterion requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to the receiving country. The Tribunal also considered Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines concerning refugee and complementary protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion, nor did it find that he met the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal's decision was informed by evidence presented by the applicant, information from independent sources regarding South Africa, and country information assessments. The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if the applicant were to return to South Africa, noting that general crime in South Africa is not considered race-based according to country sources.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The matter was referred to the Minister for consideration under section 417 of the Act, which allows the Minister to substitute a more favourable decision if deemed to be in the public interest.