1712524 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in February 2011 and again in November 2011, claimed to fear harm in the Philippines due to her sexuality and a relationship with an Australian woman. She also cited fear of her husband, from whom she could not divorce due to Philippine law, and indicated her mother provided some support. The delegate who initially considered her application did not accept her claims, finding she applied for protection to remain in Australia rather than due to a genuine fear of harm. The applicant sought review of this decision but subsequently advised the Tribunal that she did not wish to participate in a hearing and consented to a decision being made on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of her sexuality. Crucially, during her interview with the delegate, the applicant confirmed the existence of a "gay scene" in Manila and did not appear to claim fear of harm based on her sexuality, instead focusing her fear on her husband. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any new evidence or submissions to the Tribunal and consented to a decision on the papers, despite being invited to a hearing. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

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