1805931 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant from Sri Lanka seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his race (Tamil) and an imputed political opinion, specifically suspected involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and his work as a Tamil National Alliance campaign worker. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant belonged to a particular social group. The applicant's account of events, including alleged abductions and weapons charges, was under review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for the grant of a protection visa. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility, the plausibility of his claims, and whether effective protection was available in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal also had to determine if any conduct by the applicant in Australia should be disregarded when assessing his fear of persecution.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, cautioning that the benefit of the doubt should only be given when all evidence has been obtained and checked, and the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The Tribunal found itself not satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility, noting a propensity to embellish claims. Crucially, the Tribunal found that a key claim regarding visits to his wife's mother's home and shop in Sri Lanka after a data disclosure on a Departmental website in Australia had not been established to its reasonable satisfaction. The Tribunal concluded that the disclosed data was limited and did not provide a basis to infer that Sri Lankan authorities were aware of the substance of the applicant's asylum claims.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds. As a result, the other named applicants, as family members, also failed to satisfy the relevant criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas to the applicants.