1724102 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a family from Colombia. The primary applicant claimed that she and her family had been approached by a member of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) guerrilla group. She alleged that she was initially asked to store items for the group at her workplace and later threatened with the kidnapping and recruitment of her son if she did not comply. The family subsequently reported their concerns to the Colombian Prosecutor's Office and fled to Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to Australia's protection as refugees or on complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of country information regarding FARC's disarmament and reorganisation as a political party, while acknowledging that remnants of the group remained active in certain areas. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No 84 and relevant guidelines concerning refugee and complementary protection. The central legal issue was whether, based on the accepted evidence, the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Colombia, thereby satisfying the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims were inconsistent, contradictory, and implausible. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the claimed changes of residence were not listed in the application, and the applicants continued to work in Cali after the alleged threats. Furthermore, a statement made to the local prosecutor on the day of their departure was considered in conjunction with the country information, which indicated a diminished threat from FARC due to peace accords and the group's transformation. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa), nor the related criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). Therefore, the protection visa could not be granted.