1804020 (Refugee)

The applicant, a young Tamil male from Sri Lanka, sought a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa in Australia. He claimed to fear persecution due to his ethnicity, a mistaken perception of being Muslim, imputed political opinion, and alleged links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The applicant also expressed concerns about potential harassment from Sri Lankan authorities and abduction by "grease men" or individuals in white vans, as well as facing repercussions for having illegally departed Sri Lanka. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of his protection visa application.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution. Additionally, the court had to consider the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Sri Lanka, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, which mandates the consideration of policy guidelines from the Department of Immigration and country information assessments from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The court reviewed the DFAT Country Information Report for Sri Lanka dated 4 November 2019, along with other relevant country information and departmental guidelines. The applicant's claims of harassment by the Sri Lankan army, fear of "grease men," abduction of his brother-in-law, and potential targeting due to his illegal departure were assessed. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon return to Sri Lanka. Consequently, the court concluded that Australia had no protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36 of the Act.