1806907 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1177

1806907 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1177 (27 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms KATHLEEN CLARE COFFEY (MARN: 1067518)

CASE NUMBER:  1806907

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Genevieve Hamilton

DATE:27 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 27 February 2023 at 3:16pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – political opinion – local leader of the SLFP – parents’ involvement in politics – murder of mother – killers’ targeting applicant – Catholic religion – did not apply for asylum in other countries visited – no evidence of political motivation for mother’s murder – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 17 April 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 5 March 2018.

3. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 2 December 2022.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Sinhala and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.

6. The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s 36 of the Act.  An applicant must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2). Generally speaking, they must either be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion (s 36(2)(a)), or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), or be a member of the same family unit as such a person. 

7. Under s 36(3) Australia does not have protection obligations to an applicant who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country.

   Refugee

8. Refugee is defined in the Act.  A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1).  

9. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country.

10. The criterion in s 5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted.  A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.

11. The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).

12. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA).  A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecutionif the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution (s 5J(3), which also gives examples of types of modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion, race or sexual orientation). 

13. In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a refugee (s 5J(6)).

    Complementary Protection

14. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion, they may still be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.  S 36(2A) defines significant harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  “Real risk” has the same meaning as “real chance”: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

15. Under s 36(2B) Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where:

    ·it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm;

    ·the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country, such that there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    ·the risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and not by the applicant personally.

    Mandatory considerations

16. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Claims and evidence

17. The applicant had a no further stay condition on his visitor visa and asked for it to be waived.  He said he would be killed by his mother’s murderers, they know he knows who they are and that he is [an official] of the SLFP in his area. 

18. In his protection visa application the applicant said he was born in Colombo, Sri Lanka on [date] and is a Sri Lankan citizen.  He said his religion is Roman Catholic, he speaks reads and writes Sinhala and English.  He completed A levels in [year] in Colombo.  He married in December 1990.  His brother, sister, wife and two sons [live] in Sri Lanka.  He contacts his wife and two children daily by phone and skype.  He left Sri Lanka legally travelling on a Sri Lankan passport.   He came on a visitor visa issued [in] January 2015.  He left Sri Lanka [in] March 2015, left Australia [in] March and went to [Country 1], returning to Australia [in] March 2015.  The applicant also took a religious visit to India in 2004.  In his form 80 the applicant said his brother actually lives in [Country 2].

19. The applicant lived from [birth] to March 2015 in Gampaha District, but also from 2001 to 2014 [in] Vavuniya.  He had various contracts to do [work], through his business established in 1985, including with the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation in the early 2000s.

20. The applicant said he left Sri Lanka because he was threatened by people who killed his mother, and they are protected by the government.  The case was pending in the courts until the suspects get arrested.  He received several death threats on the phone.  As a result he went to the Northern Province to hide from 2001 to 2014.  But they found out where he was.   When he came home his wife told him that she was getting calls from the same people and they told her they are now after both him and his older son.  They went to hide at [Church 1] in [Location 1] for 3 weeks in November 2014.  Then he went south for 3 months, relocating his [work equipment] to friends’ places.  The threats continued even more as they traced him, and he found out that they were protected by the current government.  The threats worsened after the government changed.  After he came to Australia his wife was threatened even more, so she and his sons were hiding [in] [Location 2]. 

21. The applicant claimed that he was [an official] of the SLFP in [location] which was why the government would not protect him.

22. In a supporting statutory declaration the applicant said his mother was murdered in a burglary at his home [in] June 2000.  [The] police filed a murder case in the Magistrates’ Court in [location] (Police complaint number [deleted], Case number [deleted]).  A warrant was issued for arrest of the suspects.  The applicant received threats and went to the North.  On October 28 2014 he received a call indicating they knew where he was.  The applicant went home to his family.  The claims proceed as aforementioned. 

23. Documents were submitted which according to their translations verify that the applicant’s mother was strangled in a robbery, committed by unknown offenders.

24. Sister [A] supplied a letter dated 14 April (2015?), on letterhead of the [Church 1] [School], [Location 2], stating that the applicant left to Australia due to death threats.  His mother had been murdered by a gang of robbers.  As the applicant was not in Sri Lanka his wife and children were threatened by the suspects causing mental anguish.  His wife and sons, and mother in law, were staying at the School since March 2015 due to the constant death threats.  Police inquiries were still going on and the suspects are following them and making threats over the phone. 

25. Rev [B], parish priest at [Church 1] in [Location 1], supplied a letter dated 20 April 2015 saying that the applicant and his son saw him and asked for shelter for three weeks from 1 to 21 November 2014 because they have had constant murder threats.  His mother had been murdered [in] June 2000 inside their house.  Police inquiries were still going on and accordingly the suspects are following them and making threats via telephone calls. 

26. The applicant submitted a certified copy of a letter on very faded letter head of [Mr C], [stated position], SLFP [location], stating that the applicant is an active member of the party and has served as [an official] of [named] Branch for 12 years.  The letter is dated [April] 2015, and is signed and stamped. 

27. The applicant submitted a document on letterhead of the Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation in Vavuniya dated 2007 concerning a proposed vehicle transfer to the applicant. 

28. The Tribunal received a review submission and attachments dated 25 November 2022.

29. In a statutory declaration dated 22 November 2022 the applicant said his sister [A] was a nun.  He lived in Western province until January 2001 and then in the Northern Province until 2014, returning briefly to the Western Province for a short period and to the South of Sri Lanka prior to coming to Australia.  The applicant said he no longer supported the SLFP and strongly opposes the current government.  He is a devout Catholic.  He had been helping the Sri Lankan community in Australia build a temple.  He had also handed out how to vote cards for an Australian politician, as he had always been passionate about politics.  He believed the people who killed his mother had come looking for him to kill him because he supported the SLFP.  He fought for justice for her that is why he faced ongoing threats.  After the end of the Civil War when freedom of movement improved in Sri Lanka, he would be found and killed by the men threatening him. 

30. The applicant commented on certain aspects of the Delegate’s reasoning.  He stated that his documents were genuine.  He reiterated that there were concerns among the Sinhalese community when he was helping the Tamil community.  He declared that his family was scared to freely practice their faith because the authorities were harassing and persecuting Catholics over protests about the Government’s response to the Easter bombings.  He declared that he also feared harm due to his long presence in Australia.  A friend who went to the consulate to renew his passport was told that they were aware he had applied for protection and therefore he was considered an enemy of Sri Lanka.  If he returned he would be harmed.  The applicant was scared he would be detained, interrogated and harmed. 

31. In their submission the applicant’s representative stated that the applicant feared harm based on his imputed political opinion, religion, and membership of a particular social group (returnee from the West/failed asylum seeker).  The representative reiterated the applicants claims as outlined above, stated that he was likely to be an active opponent of the regime if returned to Sri Lanka, and addressed principles regarding the assessment of credibility.  They stated that the applicant had been consistent in his evidence.  They stated that the applicant applied for a visitor visa for Australia as soon as he discovered the ability to do so, and did not previously have experience in applying for visas.  He did not believe that obtaining protection in India was possible.  It was while he was in [Country 1] that he spoke to a friend about his struggles in India and decided he could not safely return to Sri Lanka.  His length of time abroad would bring him to the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities and he would be at risk of imprisonment and torture. 

32. The representative cited the US State Department 2021 Country information Report on Human Rights Practices in Sri Lanka to the effect that there were serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.  They cited the Human Rights Watch concerning the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to detain suspects indefinitely and the prevalence of torture, observations about the militarisation of the state and the treatment of mass protests in 2022, and information about the treatment of Christians.    

33. Fr [D] of [Church 2 in Australia] wrote a letter stating that the applicant and his family had faced torture and persecution during the civil war.  His life was at stake if made to return to Sri Lanka. 

    The hearing

34. The applicant said his father died of [medical condition] many years ago.  His brother has been in [Country 2] for over 30 years.  His sister [is] a Catholic Nun, she is the principal in the [school].  His wife is living in the family home, one son is married and living with his wife. 

35. Regarding the events of [June] 2000 (his father was already deceased), the applicant said it was a burglary, but the offenders were looking for the applicant.  They were never identified.  The Tribunal noted that the report stated that the offenders were unknown, and that by the description of the crime, it appeared to motivated by theft.  The applicant maintained they were looking for him but he wasn’t there.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thought they were looking for him.  The applicant said he was involved in a lot of politics.  He was president of the SLFP office responsible for the area.  About 300 local families were members.  He helped them with their economic and social needs and got letters from the local MP for them (then [Mr C]). 

36. The Tribunal observed that the country information indicated that election violence was not common in Sri Lanka and as a local branch leader the applicant did not have a high profile.  He appeared to be conjecturing that he was the target of the robbery. 

37. The applicant said he was a vocal critic of government corruption.  His parents were also involved in the SLFP.  There were death threats against the applicant and he went North from 2001 to 2014.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any evidence of these threats or of having reported them to the police.  The applicant said he had forgotten to bring the police complaint.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that if such a document existed he would likely have submitted it by now, and have retained evidence of any threats made against him.  The applicant said he had no confidence in the police after his mother’s death. 

38. The Tribunal asked the applicant what was the content of the threats against him.  The applicant said he was openly criticising the corruption of higher ups and then he gave up politics.  The Tribunal repeated the question.  The applicant said they came in search of the applicant and his wife was there.  The Tribunal asked again what was said in the threats against him.  The applicant said “we killed your mother and the next will be you so stop criticising corruption”.  The Tribunal noted that being a critic of corruption was not in his written claims at the primary stage.  The applicant said, maybe it was his mother’s involvement that was the root cause.

39. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had ever been able, by any means, to identify people who had threatened him.  The applicant said they were masked and they were also protected by political influence.  While he was in the North there were calls to his house and his wife said she was threatened.  She wanted him to leave Sri Lanka

40. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had any issues when he went to the North.  The applicant said there were a lot of army checkpoints but apart from that everything was alright.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that, considering he is Sinhalese, it would be unlikely he would be suspected of helping the LTTE.  The applicant said people in his own village thought that because the TRO is affiliated with the LTTE.  The Tribunal thought this was unlikely, considering he was there on reconstruction business.  The applicant said even so, such accusations could be made.  The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had been so accused.  He said there was gossip.

41. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he left the North.  The applicant said he wanted to leave the country after the war ended.  He applied for a visa late 2014, and after it was granted he went to stay with a friend in the South “to avoid the situation”.  Asked why he didn’t leave Sri Lanka straight away the applicant said he needed to sell his equipment and put together some money, and make arrangements for the children, by putting money into an account for them.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that these things could be done without being in Sri Lanka if his situation was urgent.  Asked if anything had happened to his family since he came to Australia, the applicant said he had advised them not to get involved in politics.

42. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not leave Sri Lanka until 2015, but he could have applied for a visa sooner if he felt that he was in danger.  The applicant said living in the North gave him protection.  He stated that it became possible to leave Sri Lanka after the war ended and “the country opened”.  Also he did not at that stage have an intention to leave Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he went to [Country 1] before lodging his protection application.  The applicant said he was in two minds about applying.  The Tribunal said it might draw the inference that he did not feel he was a risk of serious harm.   

43. The applicant said he did not intend involving himself in politics in the future. 

44. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had ever experienced harm in relation to being a Catholic.  The applicant referred to the Easter bombings and said he believed that this was fomented by the Government to generate hostilities between Catholics and Muslims.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that the country information indicated that Catholics were not at risk of serious harm due to their religion. 

1. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may give the support letters little weight because they were based on his own information rather than direct witness. 

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the country information indicated that asylum seekers were not at risk in Sri Lanka and were not imputed with an anti-government imputed political opinion.  The applicant said he had already been a government critic and had been in protests.  The Tribunal queried this last claim as it had not been made before.  The applicant said all the Sri Lankan people are against the government.  People like himself who had been involved in politics could be arrested at the airport. 

3. The applicant said he had missed his son’s wedding because of being here.  He was afraid of what would happen to him.  His mental state was not good. 

4. The applicant’s representative submitted that there was a great deal of upheaval in Sri Lanka.  The applicant is opposed to the regime, he has spent a number of years abroad and is a member of a religious minority.  Therefore he could be treated as a political opponent.

   Country information

5. DFAT's Country Information Report on Sri Lanka dated 23 December 2021 states as follows:

   Sri Lanka has held regular democratic elections since independence. Large-scale violence and vote rigging have never been features of elections, but nor have elections always been described as entirely free and fair. DFAT assesses that political parties are able to operate freely across Sri Lanka and contest elections. There are no constitutional, legal or other restrictions preventing minorities from participating in politics. Sri Lanka has a diverse political landscape, with 70 registered political parties representing ethnic, religious and ideological interests. 

6. There were isolated incidents of threats and violence reported to the Sri Lankan Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) during the 2018 elections, involving a range of political parties.  The Department of Home Affairs Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS) report on Sri Lanka Common Claims states that while there were a number of electoral law violations and other incidents during both the August 2020 parliamentary and November 2019 presidential polls, independent observers stated that there were fewer than in previous elections.  The Report also notes that in the 9 May 2022 violence, which was instigated by SLPP supporters, SLPP parliamentarians and members were attacked in retaliatory violence. 

7. The DFAT report states that: attempts to use fraudulent documents are common and DFAT is aware of fraudulent sponsor letters and employment letters being presented by asylum seekers.  Land title deeds that have been fraudulently obtained have also been presented as evidence of an individual’s financial situation.  Other asylum destination countries have reported receiving fraudulent documentation from asylum applicants.  DFAT assesses that document fraud is common in Sri Lanka. 

8. It is reported in the UK Home Office Fact Finding Report (20 January 2020) that the IOM noted that claiming asylum abroad is not an offence, and so when someone returns to Sri Lanka who has been absent for a number of years or has an expired visa, they would not be questioned about this and there were no reports of returnees being interrogated on such grounds. 

9. The DFAT report states:

   Unsuccessful asylum seekers, both those subject to removal or departing voluntarily, are returned to Sri Lanka either using commercial or charter flights. In some cases, they may be accompanied by security escorts. On arrival in Colombo, returnees will be presented to Sri Lankan Immigration where they will be interviewed by the Chief Immigration Officer. Depending on the circumstances of their departure from Sri Lanka and their personal history, they may be interviewed by other agencies including CID, Sri Lankan State Intelligence Service (SIS) and Sri Lankan Navy Intelligence (SLNI). These agencies check travel documents and identity information against the immigration databases, intelligence databases and records of outstanding criminal matters. Those who have departed illegally will be referred to CID at the airport and charged accordingly. Once charged they are taken to the courts at Negombo where they are bailed and released.

   DFAT is not aware of returnees in 2021 being detained for matters other than illegal departure (such as, for former membership of the LTTE). …

   The IOM meets Australian-assisted voluntary returnees (i.e. not deportees) after immigration clearance at the airport and provides some cash and onward transportation assistance, along with legal assistance provided by the Sri Lankan Legal Aid Commission for those charged with illegal departure. Prior to departure from Australia, Australian Border Force provides removed returnees with cash to assist their return.

   For returnees travelling on temporary travel documents, police undertake an investigative process to confirm identity. This would identify someone trying to conceal a criminal or terrorist background, or trying to avoid court orders or arrest warrants. This often involves interviewing the returning passenger, contacting police in their claimed hometown, contacting claimed neighbours and family, and checking criminal and court records. DFAT is not aware of detainees being subjected to mistreatment during processing at the airport.

   DFAT is not aware of returnees from Australia to Sri Lanka being charged under the PTA.

10. The DFAT report states:

    DFAT assesses that Christians in Sri Lanka face a low risk of official discrimination. DFAT also assesses that evangelical Christians in Sri Lanka face a moderate risk of societal discrimination, and that Roman Catholics and other mainstream Christian denominations face a low risk of societal discrimination. The number of incidents targeting evangelical Christians has remained largely static over recent years and is highest in Buddhist-majority regions in the North Central, South and Western provinces. Aside from the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks, DFAT assesses that Christians face a low threat of violence from homegrown Islamic extremist groups, although this could change if such groups were to expand in membership and strengthen their international links.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

11. Based on the information in his protection application, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s country of nationality is Sri Lanka. 

12. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a local leader of the SLFP, based on his evidence and the letter from his MP. 

13. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s mother was murdered in 2000, in a violent armed robbery, based on the police documents submitted.  However it is not satisfied that this was motivated by the applicant’s, or his parents’, involvement in politics.  There is simply no evidence to support that claim.  The applicant could not identify any specific political enemies they might have had, or any specific political dispute he might have had leading to such a level of enmity.  Country information indicates that election related violence between opposing political parties is uncommon, and it may be extrapolated that it is also uncommon outside of election cycles. 

14. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was subsequently threatened by the perpetrators of the murder of his mother.  The applicant was unable to provide any evidence of such threats, including communication with the police which the Tribunal would expect he would have, if he was at risk of being harmed like his mother.  Despite indicating in his waiver request that he knew who the perpetrators were, his later evidence was consistent with the police documents which indicated that the perpetrators were unknown.  The applicant has not provided any later documentation indicating that the perpetrators were identified and charged.  The applicant claimed that these people were protected by the police but he is not in a position to know that if they have not been identified.  The applicant claimed that these threats continued in 2014, but it was not readily plausible that his mother’s killers would draw attention to themselves in this way so long after the event.  Moreover, the applicant was unable to provide a coherent description of the content or purpose of the threats against him, whether they were motivated by his political involvement or a warning against seeking justice for his mother’s killing. 

15. The applicant claimed that he went to the Northern Province to escape these threats, but the most obvious explanation for his going to the North is that he had employment opportunities, there, and the Tribunal finds that this was his reason. 

16. The Tribunal finds that the applicant visited friends and relatives after returning from the North, not because he and his family were hiding, but because the more obvious explanation is that he had the opportunity to do so having given up his residence in Vavuniya.  The Tribunal gives little weight to the letters provided by his sister (Sister [A]) and a parish priest in Sri Lanka, as they are not direct witnesses to his claimed experiences and were motivated to help him in his asylum claim.  The priest in Australia makes a general statement that the applicant was tortured and persecuted which bears little likeness to the applicant’s own claims. 

17. The applicant could have applied for a visa to enter Australia in the period after his mother was killed, if he felt he was under threat.  It is not plausible that he did not know that visiting Australia was possible, given the extensive Sri Lankan diaspora in many western countries he would know of people coming and going to Australia.  It was implied that somehow the end of the war made his leaving possible, and also made it possible for his enemies to find him, but this was not persuasive, as movement even within, let alone in and out of the country, was never fully prevented during the war years. 

18. The Tribunal, for the same reasons, does not accept that the applicant’s wife and sons have been threatened, including after he came to Australia.  The applicant said in the hearing that they were now living in the family home and they have not come to harm in the years he has been in Australia. 

19. The applicant on the one hand said he was not a supporter of the SLFP any more, and that he was an active critic, but he also said in the hearing that he would not be involving himself in politics any more in Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends to be active in politics in Sri Lanka, notwithstanding his involvement with the campaign of an Australian politician.  He did not provide any detail about his late claimed involvement in protests, and the Tribunal does not accept that this is true. 

20. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s first contract in the North was with the TRO, and that the TRO was seen as a pro-LTTE organisation.  Given the animosity held by the Sinhalese toward Tamil separatism it is certainly possible that he experienced some social rejection for working in the North.  But he was not seriously harmed and there is nothing before the Tribunal indicating that a former business role in the North would put him at risk of being seriously harmed in the future. 

21. Based on the country information, the Tribunal finds that applying for asylum in a Western country, or spending a long time in a Western country, does not per se lead to real chance of serious harm in Sri Lanka.  Consulate officials may be critical of the practice but that does not lead to serious harm. 

22. Based on the country information, the Tribunal finds that despite the Easter Sunday terrorism in 2019, Catholics face only a low risk of official and social discrimination in Sri Lanka. 

23. The applicant claimed that his mental state was not good, however there is no indication that he has been diagnosed with or requires treatment for mental illness. 

24. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for the relevant reasons specified in s 5J(1), i.e. his religion, actual or imputed political opinion, or membership of any particular social group.  He therefore does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as required by s.5J(1).  The Tribunal finds that he is not a refugee as defined in s.5H(1). 

25. Having concluded that the refugee criterion is not met, the Tribunal considered the application of the complementary protection provisions.  As the Tribunal has already found that there is no factual basis for the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm in relation to the claims discussed above, similarly it finds that he does not face a real risk of significant harm, as defined, in relation to those claims.

    CONCLUSION

26. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).

27. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Genevieve Hamilton
    Member