1705053 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a family of five Libyan citizens. The applicants had arrived in Australia in 2010 and 2013, with two of the children born in Australia. Applicant 1 had received a Libyan Government scholarship, colloquially known as a 'Gaddafi scholarship', to complete his studies in Australia. The family claimed to fear persecution in Libya due to Applicant 1's imputed political opinion, stemming from his participation in a rally supporting the Libyan uprising in 2011, his family's historical opposition to Gaddafi, and his brother's involvement in the interim government and militia forces opposing General Haftar. They also cited generalised violence, the potential for harm from General Haftar's army, and concerns about inadequate medical care for their youngest child due to the destruction of infrastructure. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's refusal of the protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations under refugee or complementary protection grounds. This involved assessing the credibility of the claims of imputed political opinion, the risk of persecution or harm from state and non-state actors in Libya, and the availability of adequate protection from the Libyan state. The Tribunal also had to consider the specific vulnerability of the youngest child due to his premature birth and the general insecurity and destruction of infrastructure in Libya.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of the criteria set out in section 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as well as relevant policy guidelines and country information. It found that the applicants were citizens of Libya and that Libya was the relevant receiving country for protection assessments. The Tribunal did not find evidence that the applicants had a right to reside in a third country. After reviewing the evidence and hearing from the applicants, the Tribunal remitted the decisions under review with a direction that the applicants satisfy section 36(2)(a) of the Act.