1718883 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse to grant protection visas to a Libyan national and his family. The applicants claimed they faced a real risk of serious harm upon return to Libya due to a combination of their actual or perceived political opinions, including opposition to certain militias, perceived alignment with the Gaddafi regime, progressive political and religious views, and association with an individual known to have become an ISIS fighter. The female applicants also claimed risk based on their perceived religious views as "unIslamic" and their support for women's rights, identifying as a "(Westernized and/or Progressive) Highly Educated Women" and other similar social groups.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion or membership of a particular social group, such that they ought to be granted protection visas. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims and evaluating the country information regarding the safety and protection available in Libya. The court also needed to consider whether the applicants' perceived political and religious views, or their association with an ISIS fighter, would place them at risk of harm from state or non-state actors in Libya.

The court reasoned that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution. It found that the first-named applicant's actual or perceived political opinions, including his association with the Zawiya Tribe and opposition to the Wershefana militia, coupled with his perceived pro-Gaddafi stance and progressive views, placed him at risk. Furthermore, his association with his son, who became an ISIS fighter, could lead to him being perceived as a supporter of ISIS, thereby exposing him to danger. The court also considered the female applicants' claims, finding that their perceived religious views as "unIslamic" and their progressive, westernised outlook, along with their support for women's rights, would likely lead to them being perceived as contravening conservative moral codes, thus placing them at risk. The court concluded that state protection would not be available to the applicants in Libya.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the delegate for reconsideration according to law.