1707637 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, but the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant it. The applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as there was no suggestion that they were a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied section 36(2)(a) or (aa) and held a protection visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in a receiving country. The court also considered the definitions of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, degrading treatment or punishment, and torture as provided in the *Migration Act*.

The court applied the principles outlined in section 5J of the *Migration Act*, which defines a well-founded fear of persecution. This includes the requirement that there be a real chance of persecution in all areas of a receiving country and that effective protection measures are not available. The court noted that a person does not have a well-founded fear if they can take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution, provided such modification does not conflict with fundamental aspects of their identity or conscience. The court also considered the provisions relating to membership of a particular social group and the availability of effective protection measures, which include the willingness and ability of the relevant state or an organisation to offer protection, and the accessibility, durability, and appropriateness of that protection.

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