1711245 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Moroccan national. The applicant claimed to have suffered significant financial loss and reputational damage due to a business dispute with a wholesaler and a former partner, leading to threats from non-state actors. The applicant sought to establish that he was a refugee or, alternatively, that Australia had protection obligations towards him under the complementary protection criterion.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or if there were substantial grounds for believing that his removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. This involved assessing the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution, the availability of state protection in Morocco, and the nature and likelihood of any threats he faced.

The court considered the applicant's claims of threats from wholesalers and the alleged corruption within the Moroccan police force. However, it found no evidence that the applicant had committed any criminal offences that would lead to the death penalty. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had not received threats while in Australia and had lived in Rabat for seven months without incident before leaving Morocco. Citing country information indicating Morocco's commitment to judicial reform and the existence of a working criminal law and legal system, the court concluded that the applicant could obtain protection from the Moroccan authorities and that there was not a real risk of him suffering significant harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act, nor the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa).