1708543 (Refugee)

The applicants sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse them protection visas. The first applicant, a woman from Mauritius, arrived in Australia in 2009, followed by her husband and two children. They had previously held student visas, which had since ceased. The protection visa application was lodged in October 2015.

The core legal issues before the court concerned whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Mauritius. Specifically, the applicants claimed they feared mistreatment from their in-laws due to controlling behaviour and social judgment, and also feared persecution as converts from Hinduism to Christianity. They also raised concerns about financial hardship and the impact on their children's future and education.

The court considered the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958, including the definition of a refugee and the requirements for a well-founded fear of persecution, which necessitates a real chance of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The court also examined the complementary protection criterion, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The court found that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, noting that the claimed harms were not of the kind that would engage Australia's protection obligations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicants protection visas. However, the Tribunal indicated it would make a referral for ministerial consideration.