1713671 (Refugee)

The applicant, a former leader of a security agency in the Philippines, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to have survived an assassination attempt in February 2011 and subsequently feared for his safety in the Philippines, leading him to obtain a visitor visa for Australia in May 2011. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to the Philippines.

The legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his past role, or whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's credibility and the consistency of his claims, particularly regarding the timing of past incidents.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) as a refugee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal's decision was based on its assessment of the evidence presented, including the applicant's inconsistent and vague recall of key dates and events, such as the assassination attempt and the shooting at his home, which undermined the credibility of his claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.