1621400 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by a family unit, with the first named applicant alleging fear of revenge from her father due to a violation of tradition, and the fourth named applicant claiming threats related to his involvement in local and national elections. The Federal Circuit Court was required to determine whether these applicants, and their children, faced a real chance of significant harm if returned to Albania, thereby qualifying for protection under Australian law.

The court was tasked with assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented, including letters of support from family members and an association member, and a "dob-in-letter" from the Department of Immigration. Crucially, the court had to consider whether the alleged fears of harm, stemming from a personal vendetta for the first applicant and a political vendetta for the fourth applicant, constituted a real risk of significant harm, and whether these risks, when considered cumulatively with the risks to the children, met the threshold for protection.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principle that to establish a real chance of harm, the totality of circumstances must be examined. The court found that while corporal punishment might occur in Albania, it was not condoned by the state and had seen a substantial reduction in acceptance. Therefore, the risk of corporal punishment to the children was not considered a real chance of serious harm. Regarding the adult applicants, the court found that the risks of significant harm from their respective personal and political vendettas did not overlap or increase cumulatively. Consequently, the court concluded that neither the first nor the fourth named applicant faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of returning to Albania.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the protection visa applications were refused.