1729929 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa application of a Sri Lankan national who arrived in Australia in June 2012. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Sri Lanka due to his parents' past involvement with the Eelam People Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and his maternal uncles' involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He also cited his own activities with the Tamil Refugee Council (TRC) in Australia, which he described as critical of the Sri Lankan government and supportive of Tamil rights, as a basis for his fear.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Sri Lanka, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the validity and weight of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) country information assessments in light of the applicant's submissions and other available country information, particularly concerning the current political climate and the risks faced by members of the Tamil diaspora.

The Tribunal reasoned that while DFAT assessments are generally considered sound and valid sources, they must be viewed in the context of all available current country information. It found that the applicant's active involvement in the TRC, including organising public events and speaking at rallies critical of the Sri Lankan government and commemorating Tamil issues, would likely bring him to the adverse attention of Sri Lankan authorities upon return. Considering the heightened tensions in Sri Lanka, the continued use of provisions like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the potential for monitoring and adverse attention during identification processes, the Tribunal concluded there was a real chance the applicant would face monitoring, questioning, arrest, detention, mistreatment, and potentially be held under the PTA. The Tribunal was satisfied that this treatment would amount to persecution involving serious harm for reasons of his actual and imputed pro-LTTE/anti-government political opinion, and that state protection would not be available.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).