1713284 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by three applicants from Peru. The primary applicant, the husband, claimed to have been a law court administrator who investigated criminal activities and presented evidence in court against corrupt political organisations and individuals, including a mayor named Mr B. He alleged that this work led to death threats against himself and his family, and that he was a key witness against Mr B. The applicants sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of their protection visa applications.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to protection in Australia as refugees, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. This involved assessing whether the husband's claims about his work, the resulting threats, and his fear of harm upon return to Peru were credible and established a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The court also considered whether the applicants met the criteria for complementary protection, which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The court affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa. It found the husband's claims regarding his job description, responsibilities, and the threats to be vague and inconsistent, impacting his credibility. The court noted that the applicants had not claimed protection in other countries they visited, and there was a delay in their application for protection in Australia, which was lodged after the husband failed an English language test for a skills visa. Furthermore, the husband had returned to Peru without harm. The court also considered that the daughter had lived in Australia for most of her life, but this did not alter the assessment of the protection claims.

The court concluded that the applicants had not established that they met the criteria for a protection visa, either on refugee or complementary protection grounds. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.