1721873 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Colombian national and her child. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the Revolutionary Armed Front of Colombia (FARC) due to her work as a project manager, which involved presenting proposals for research to potential customers whose business activities may have an environmental impact. She alleged that FARC had approached her for illicit activities, increased harassment when she refused, and threatened her son. The applicant also claimed her ex-partner had suffered serious burns and her parents had been threatened, forcing her mother to flee. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions, including section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning complementary protection. This criterion requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines and country information. The delegate's decision had not made clear findings on credibility and had found that the harm feared was personal and not tied to the state, suggesting relocation within Colombia was available.

The Tribunal found that the delegate's reasoning was not always clear and that the delegate had not made a clear finding about the credibility of the applicant's protection claims. The Tribunal noted that the delegate accepted that police in Colombia were under-resourced but were making efforts to prosecute perpetrators. However, the Tribunal also considered the applicant's further submissions, including a statutory declaration detailing retaliatory actions against her family in Colombia since her arrival in Australia, such as her ex-partner being severely burned and her parents being threatened, leading to her mother's displacement. The Tribunal also reviewed documents including a Colombian Statement form for Registration on the Victims’ Unique Registry, which identified the applicant's father and noted threats against him, his wife, and children. The Tribunal concluded that the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error and remitted the matter to the delegate for redetermination according to law.