1811483 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicants were citizens of Nepal, with the applicant child having been born in Australia and subsequently becoming an Australian citizen. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the 'refugee' criterion or 'complementary protection' grounds, or were members of the same family unit as a person who held such a visa. The decision was made by Alison Murphy.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing whether they met the 'refugee' criterion, which typically relates to a well-founded fear of persecution based on specific grounds, or the 'complementary protection' criterion. The latter requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to a receiving country, the individual faces a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also considered relevant country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and guidelines issued under Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. While the specific reasons for not meeting the refugee criterion are not detailed, the Tribunal found that the applicant child was an Australian citizen and therefore not subject to the protection visa assessment. The Tribunal's reasoning, as indicated by the structure of the decision, involved assessing the claims against Nepal as the country of nationality and receiving country, and considering the provisions of section 36(2)(a) and (2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) concerning refugee and complementary protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not establish grounds for protection.