1700966 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Zimbabwe. The applicant claimed to fear persecution by Zimbabwean authorities due to her and her family's past support for the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). She alleged a history of politically motivated violence, including rape, beatings, and the deaths of her father and mother. The case was heard by the Tribunal, with Paul Noonan as the presiding member.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm if returned to Zimbabwe. The Tribunal was also required to consider the claims of other applicants who were members of the applicant's family unit, and whether they would be entitled to a protection visa based on their relationship to the applicant. The Tribunal was directed to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that while there were troubling aspects to the applicant's claims, particularly concerning her relatives' connections to the ruling ZANU-PF party, it accepted the applicant's identity and nationality. The Tribunal noted that certain circumstances, such as the availability of internal relocation, protection from authorities, or risks faced by the general population, could negate a real risk of significant harm. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that while it was not satisfied that the other applicants met the criteria under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), they were indeed the husband and child of the applicant, and therefore members of the same family unit for the purposes of s 36(2)(c)(i). Consequently, the fate of their applications was dependent on the outcome of the applicant's own application.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with specific directions. These directions stipulated that the applicant should be found to satisfy s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, and that the other applicants should be found to satisfy s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Act based on their membership of the same family unit as the applicant.