1730123 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Sri Lankan national. The applicant claimed he feared harm upon return to Sri Lanka due to his political opinion as a supporter of the United National Party (UNP). He alleged he had been subjected to verbal abuse and physical assaults by supporters of the People’s Alliance (PA), the government party, particularly in relation to his involvement in local council elections. The applicant contended that the PA supporters sought to control the local fish market where he worked and viewed UNP supporters as a threat. He also asserted that the Sri Lankan authorities were unable to protect him. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion, such that he would be entitled to a protection visa. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims, the credibility of his evidence, and whether there was a real chance that he would suffer serious harm if returned to Sri Lanka, taking into account relevant country information and guidelines. The Tribunal was required to consider the consistency of the applicant's account and whether his claims were fabricated for migration purposes.

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence. It noted the absence of a passport and the reliance on non-original copies of identification documents. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims of persecution were unreliable and likely fabricated for migration purposes. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine fear of harm, nor that there was a real chance of him suffering serious harm if returned to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal applied the principles of assessing claims for protection visas, including the assessment of credibility and the likelihood of harm, and found that the applicant had not discharged his burden of proof. The decision under review was affirmed.