1620681 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, sought review of a decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Sri Lanka due to his opposition to the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), also known as the Karuna Group, his family's past support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), his brother's involvement with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), his own perceived wealth, and his status as a failed asylum seeker. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a real chance of suffering persecution for a Convention reason, namely political opinion, race, or membership of a particular social group, and whether there was a lack of state protection.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the extensive country information regarding the conflict in Sri Lanka and the activities of various groups, including the LTTE and the TMVP. The court noted significant inconsistencies and a lack of credibility in the applicant's evidence, particularly concerning the timing and nature of his alleged experiences with the Karuna Group, his involvement with the TNA, and the reasons for his departure from Sri Lanka. The court found that the applicant had not provided a coherent or consistent account of his alleged persecution, and that his claims regarding the Karuna Group's ongoing interest in him due to his opposition or perceived wealth were not substantiated. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's claims regarding his support for the TNA and the associated risks were not consistently maintained throughout the application process and were contradicted by his brother's evidence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason. The court found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies and unexplained omissions, and that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of harm that would engage Australia's protection obligations. The court affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.