1711920 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Albanian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Albania due to a blood feud arising from his father's murder and a significant debt owed to loan sharks. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including considerations of refugee status and complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding a blood feud, a substantial debt, and subsequent threats. The Tribunal also had to assess whether, even if the refugee criterion was not met, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to Albania, thus engaging complementary protection. A further issue was the applicant's identity, given his history of using multiple aliases and providing inconsistent information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness. It noted significant inconsistencies and changes in his narrative over time, including his claims about his father's death, the nature and origin of his debt, the identity of the creditors, and his personal relationships and living circumstances in Australia. The Tribunal also found it improbable that the applicant had borrowed the large sums of money he claimed, given his stated employment history and the economic conditions in Albania at the time. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered country information indicating that Albania has a universal healthcare system and concluded that the applicant could access necessary medical and mental health services upon return. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if he were returned to Albania.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee provisions or under the complementary protection provisions.