1619824 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of the Republic of North Macedonia. The applicant, who identified as a Christian Macedonian, claimed to have experienced religious violence in his hometown, including an assault by a group of Muslims and the destruction of his bible. He further alleged that the local police were unsympathetic due to a significant Muslim presence within the force. The applicant arrived in Australia on a student visa and subsequently applied for a protection visa after his student visa application was refused. The Migration Review Tribunal had previously affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the 1951 Refugee Convention, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to the Republic of North Macedonia. This involved assessing the applicant's past experiences of persecution and the likelihood of future harm, considering the protection available from the state authorities in North Macedonia.

The court considered evidence regarding the general situation in the Republic of North Macedonia, including reports on the effectiveness of its judicial system, police force, and mechanisms for investigating and punishing abuse. It also noted constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion and prohibiting religious discrimination, as well as the addition of hate crimes to the criminal code. The court found that the state had put in place reasonable measures to protect its citizens, including an effective police force and judicial system. Applying this to the applicant's claims, the court was not satisfied that he had faced serious harm in the past for a Convention-related reason, nor that he faced a real chance of serious harm upon return. The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.