1725900 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant's original claims related to political and economic conditions and financial hardship, including an outstanding loan that was repaid before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing. A new claim of fear of harm from an ex-husband, involving allegations of drug use, physical violence, stalking, and coercion, was raised later. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), considering the applicant's credibility, the consistency of their evidence, and the timeliness of the new claims.

The court considered the definition of a well-founded fear of persecution as outlined in the Migration Act, which requires a genuine fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and a real chance of such persecution upon return to the receiving country, provided effective protection measures are not available. The court noted that the applicant's original claims were identical to those of other applicants, and the applicant admitted to copying another person's application. The court found the new claims regarding the ex-husband to be vague and inconsistent, and the delay in raising these claims, along with the fact that the ex-husband and children were not mentioned in the original application, weighed against their credibility. The court also had regard to relevant Department of Home Affairs guidelines and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.