1902559 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Refugee Tribunal affirming the refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant, a Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhist, claimed he had been threatened by his ex-wife's family and arrested on false allegations of aiding and abetting the LTTE, leading to his departure from Sri Lanka and subsequent unlawful status in Australia. He contended that these circumstances placed him at risk of significant harm if returned to Sri Lanka.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a real risk of significant harm, such that he met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the court to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of Ministerial Direction No. 84, including the possibility of internal relocation or protection from Sri Lankan authorities.

The court found that the applicant's claims were not sufficiently credible to warrant the grant of a protection visa. It noted implausibilities in the assertion that Sinhalese individuals would be imputed with supporting the LTTE, and that the ex-wife's family would continue threats after the divorce and the applicant's departure. The court also considered the repetitive nature of the applicant's family's official complaints, the doubtful authenticity of documentary evidence, and the delay in applying for protection. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that any risk he faced was not a general risk faced by the population of Sri Lanka, nor that he could not obtain protection from Sri Lankan authorities or relocate to a safer area within the country.

Consequently, the court affirmed the Refugee Tribunal's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.