1727040 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Sri Lanka due to her status as a single mother who had given birth outside of a formal marriage, alleging this would lead to her being imputed with the status of a 'concubine' and facing harm. She also argued that her partner's migration history was relevant to her claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant would, if returned to Sri Lanka, hold a *well-founded fear* of persecution for reasons of membership of a *particular social group*, and whether Australia would be under an obligation to grant her a protection visa. The court was required to consider the applicant's subjective fear of harm, her credibility, and the availability of state protection in Sri Lanka.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's difficult circumstances, the court found that her subjective fear was not genuinely held, noting inconsistencies in her evidence and her ability to adapt to Malaysian society. The court also considered the general conditions in Sri Lanka, including issues of criminality and corruption, but concluded that these did not establish a real chance of serious harm to the applicant. The court applied the principles established in refugee law concerning the assessment of subjective and objective fear, the definition of a particular social group, and the availability of state protection.