1714613 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an Italian national whose visa had been cancelled. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Italy from the 'Ndrangheta, a Calabrian mafia organisation, due to a historical family debt. He asserted that his family had fled Italy in 1990 because of threats and killings by the 'Ndrangheta, and that he would be targeted and killed upon return. The applicant also claimed he would be unable to access essential social security, medical, and mental health services in Italy, and that his significant cognitive impairments and mental health conditions would render him vulnerable and unable to survive without family support.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Italy, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding the 'Ndrangheta's historical enmity towards his family, the likelihood of him being targeted upon return, and his capacity to access and benefit from Italian social and health services, particularly in light of his cognitive and mental health issues.

The court found that the applicant's narrative regarding the 'Ndrangheta's long-standing enmity was not convincing. Significant inconsistencies were identified between the applicant's and his father's accounts of the origin of the family's alleged debt to the organisation. Furthermore, the court found the claimed lack of concern and efforts by the applicant's parents to inform themselves about the presence and activities of the 'Ndrangheta in Australia to be inconsistent with their alleged profound fear of retribution. Consequently, the court disbelieved the applicant's claims of fearing persecution by the 'Ndrangheta and concluded that he did not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution in Italy for the reasons claimed. While accepting the applicant's vulnerability due to his mental health conditions and cognitive impairments, the court found that Italy possessed a well-developed social security and health system, including mental health services, which the applicant would be able to access. The court was not satisfied that these personal circumstances, individually or cumulatively, would attract adverse attention from Italian authorities or the community, leading to persecution or significant harm.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not meet the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act, nor the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa). The court also decided not to refer the case to the Minister for consideration under s.417 of the Act.