1807390 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka. The dispute centred on her allegations of severe and prolonged domestic violence, including physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, perpetrated by her husband. She contended that due to her husband's influence and the patriarchal nature of Sri Lankan society, she would not receive adequate protection from the state and faced a real risk of harm upon return.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection. Specifically, the court had to assess the credibility of her claims of past domestic violence, the risk of future harm from her husband, the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Sri Lanka, and the feasibility of internal relocation. The applicant argued she belonged to particular social groups, including women experiencing domestic violence and women who are heads of households, and that these characteristics placed her at risk.

The court considered the applicant's extensive evidence detailing years of abuse, including physical assaults, sexual degradation, and threats of violence, as well as her husband's significant standing and connections within their local community. It also took into account country information regarding the prevalence and societal attitudes towards domestic violence in Sri Lanka, and the limited recourse available to victims. The court noted that the applicant's husband had explicitly threatened to harm her and her daughter if she did not return, and that she had no family support network outside her immediate family in the Negombo region, making internal relocation a challenging prospect. The court found that the applicant's fear of her husband was well-founded and that she would likely suffer significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka, given the lack of effective state protection and her husband's determination to locate and punish her.

Consequently, the court remitted the decision to the Tribunal for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had established a real risk of significant harm, thus meeting the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.