1711080 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from a paramilitary group and corrupt colleagues in Colombia, citing his former role as a police administrator where he was allegedly pressured to delete a criminal record of an associate of the group. He also referred to the deaths of a relative and a colleague, as well as general violence and threats directed at him and his family. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or, alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's mental health, noting a psychologist's report diagnosing dissociative amnesia, problems relating to war or hostilities, and generalised anxiety disorder. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not exhibit symptoms of anxiety during the hearing and was able to give evidence and engage meaningfully with the process. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's anxiety had reportedly reduced with therapy. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's credibility was impacted by inconsistent claims and evidence, as well as delays in departing Colombia after a visa was initially granted and in making the protection visa application. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant's wife and child initially remained in Colombia without experiencing harm, and that the applicant had treaty rights to enter other South American countries. The Tribunal also noted that the social media profiles of the applicant's siblings indicated their locations.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. The Tribunal's reasoning was informed by Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm, taking into account the available evidence and the applicant's conduct.