1904078 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1440

1904078 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1440 (24 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1904078
Tribunal:General Member N Goetz
Date:24 March 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision dated 12 February 2019 refusing to grant each applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 24 March 2025 at 1:00pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – North Macedonia – political opinion – member of political party – participation in protest and committee – verbal and physical attacks and threats, and police inaction – deaths of child and father-in-law attributed to political opponents – abducted, abused and assaulted during return visit – mental health – party now in power nationally, but risk of harm locally from political opponents, Albanian nationalists and factions within party – members of family unit husband and children – visas and travel, with husband travelling by himself first, then applicant without children – delay in applying for protection – no application for protection in another country – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 348A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for merits review of a decision made under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act) by a delegate of the respondent who refused to grant each a protection visa. The applicants were represented in the review.
The Department file reference is [Reference]. The respondent is taken to be a non - participating party in the review under s 348A of the Migration Act.
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality 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)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
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. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Sections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in reg 1.12 of the Migration Regulations.
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.
Procedural history
On 2 May 2018 the applicants applied for the protection visas. On 12 February 2019 the delegate refused to grant each applicant a protection visa, finding that they did not satisfy s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Migration Act.
On 21 February 2019 the application for review of the decision was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
On 14 October 2024 the AAT was abolished, and the review was transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to Part 24 of Schedule 16 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (Transition Act No. 1).
On 24 October 2024 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants and invited them to appear at a hearing scheduled for 13 November 2024.
Shortly after the hearing invitation had been issued, the Tribunal was contacted by the applicant’s current representative who had recently been retained to act in the review following the death of the previous representative. It was requested that the hearing be postponed in light of these recent developments, and the fact that the new representative did not have a copy of the Department file. The Tribunal agreed to treat the hearing scheduled for 13 November 2024 as a directions hearing, with a view to settling a timetable for the progression of the matter.
A further directions hearing was held on 18 December 2024. The matter could not proceed as the representative had not been provided with a copy of the Department file, despite the representative lodging a request to the Department for the documents under the relevant freedom of information legislation.
The representative was subsequently provided a copy of the Department file, and the hearing proceeded on 10 February 2025 with the assistance of an interpreter.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the review is whether each applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Migration Act.
If the Tribunal finds that a particular applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Migration Act, the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision refusing to grant that applicant a protection visa and remit the visa application for reconsideration.
If the Tribunal finds that a particular applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Migration Act, the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision refusing to grant that applicant a protection visa.
The Tribunal considered all the material on the Department file relevant to whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for the grant of the protection visa.
The Tribunal considered all the material on the Tribunal file relevant to whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for the grant of the protection visa, including the oral evidence and submissions made at the hearing.
Identity, migration history, and country of reference
The applicant claims to be [the first applicant] who was born on [Date] in [City 1], North Macedonia, her husband (whom she married [in] March 2002) [the second applicant], who was born on [Date] in [Country 1], and their two children, [the third applicant], who was born on [Date] in [City 1], North Macedonia, and their son, [the fourth applicant], who was born on [Date] in [City 1] North Macedonia.
Each applicant claimed that they were a citizen of North Macedonia and no other country, and that they did not possess the right to enter and reside in any other country.
In support of their identity, relevant documents provided were as follows:
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia passport issued in the name of [the first applicant] [in] 2013.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia national identity card issued in the name of [the first applicant] [in] July 2012.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia passport issued in the name of [the second applicant] [in] 2010.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia national identity card issued in the name of [the second applicant] [in] July 2012.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia marriage certificate issued in the name of [the first and second applicants] demonstrating they were married [in] March 2022 in [City 1], North Macedonia.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia passport issued in the name of [the fourth applicant] [in] 2014.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia birth certificate issued in the name of [the fourth applicant] demonstrating that he is the daughter of [the first and second applicants].
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia passport issued in the name of [the third applicant] [in] 2013.
·     A Republic of (North) Macedonia birth certificate issued in the name of [the third applicant] demonstrating that she is the daughter of [the first and second applicants].
On 21 March 2014 [the first applicant] was offshore granted a vocational education and training sector visa to study in Australia which was valid until 14 September 2015. She arrived in Australia [in] April 2014 holding this visa and departed [in] April 2015, before returning to Australia [in] February 2015.
On 29 July 2015 [the first applicant] was onshore and applied for a vocational education and training sector visa to study in Australia. On 8 January 2016 that visa was granted and valid until 16 May 2018. During the currency of this visa, she departed Australia on [date] September 2017 and returned on [date] September 2017. During [the first applicant’s] departure from Australia, she returned to North Macedonia and also travelled to [Country 2].
On 8 Aril 2013 [the second applicant] was offshore and granted a vocational education and training sector visa to study in Australia which was valid until 6 January 2014. [In] April 2013 he arrived in Australia holding this visa.
On 23 December 2013 [the second applicant] was onshore and applied for a vocational education and training sector visa. On 6 January 2014 this visa was granted and valid until 14 September 2015.
On 29 July 2015 [the second applicant] was onshore and applied for a vocational education and training sector visa to study in Australia. On 8 January 2016 that visa was granted and valid until 16 May 2018. During the currency of this visa, he departed Australia on [date] September 2017 and returned on [date] September 2017. During [the second applicant’s] departure from Australia, he returned to North Macedonia and also travelled to [Country 2].
On 28 January 2015 [the third and fourth applicants] were offshore and granted vocational education and training sector visas that were valid until 14 September 2015.
[In] February 2015 [the third and fourth applicants] arrived in Australia holding the visas.
On 29 July 2015 [the third and fourth applicant] applied for a vocational education and training sector visas. On 8 January 2016 that visa was granted and valid until 16 May 2018.
On 19 May 2018 all four applicants applied for the protection visas.
The Tribunal is satisfied based on the identity documents, and the fact that the applicants have entered Australia via visa grants, that they are who they claim to be. There is no evidence that any of the identity documents are bogus documents. The Tribunal is satisfied that the identity documents demonstrate that the applicants are citizens of (North) Macedonia.
There is no evidence to demonstrate that the applicants hold citizenship of any other country or the right to enter and reside in any other country. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the applicants hold no other citizenship or right to enter and reside in any other country.
Therefore, for the purpose of the protection visa assessment, the country of reference is North Macedonia.[1]
[1] The Republic of Macedonia changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia in February 2019, according to the United States Department of State Office of the Historian website: CLAIMS
The protection claims, and evidence and submissions in support of those claims, are made up of the contents of the Department file, the Tribunal file and the oral evidence provided by [the first and second applicants] at the hearing. An interpreter in the Macedonian language was provided at the hearing.
The claims can be broadly summarised as follows:
When the applicants applied for protection, the following claims were made on the material:
·     [The first applicant] was a member of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO-DPMNE) and was politically active in that country and she received threats to her life which she reported to a police station in [City 1] following protests she was involved with in May 2001.
·     [The first applicant] received threats when she was a leader of an organising committed in September 2002.
·     [The first and second applicants] had another child named [Son A] who died in July 2004 which [the first applicant] suspects was caused by political opponents.
·     During her time in North Macedonia, threats against her did not stop, and she would receive telephone threats to the point that she had to change her telephone number.
·     Individuals who are of Albanian appearance and spoke Macedonian with an Albanian accent would come to her workplace and ask about her.
·     There were verbal and physical attacks against [the first applicant] at a meeting in [City 2], and the attackers knew [the first applicant] by name and the name of her family members who threatened to kill her whole family, and a report to the police did not result in any action being taken against those individuals.
·     [The first applicant] attended a big meeting in May 2008 where she was again confronted and threats were made against her life and her family.
·     [The first applicant] relocated to her parents’ house in [City 1] with her children for safety reasons when her husband came to Australia to study, but she continued to receive threats from unknown telephone numbers prior to coming to Australia.
·     [The first applicant] subsequently applied for a visa to come to Australia, but the children remained in North Macedonia for just over a year before they arrived in Australia and joined the family.
·     [The first and second applicants] voluntarily returned to North Macedonia so that [the second applicant] could have dental work done and felt there would be no risk in doing so because of the amount of time they had spent outside of North Macedonia.
·     During the time back in North Macedonia, [the first applicant] was abducted by three unknown individuals and was physically and verbally abused and was the subject of an attempted sexual assault. These individuals knew her name and said that if she returned to North Macedonia, the abuse would be worse than what she had experienced.
·     [The first applicant] was left by the side of the road after being hit on the back of the head and passing out, regarding consciousness some time later and returning to [City 1] firs ton foot and then with the assistance of a driver who took her to a medical centre, but she decided not to go there, nor report the matter to the police because of shame.
·     [The first and second applicants] then went into hiding at a place named [Village] and then decided to go to [Country 2] to escape, before returning to North Macedonia.
·     As a result of the incident, [the first applicant] has fallen into depression and become paranoid.
·     The political situation in North Macedonia is that supporters, members, and politicians of the VMRO-DPMNE have been jailed, with their being systemic cleansing of any opposition to the North Macedonian government, with anyone who has been an activist killed or disappeared.
·     [The first applicant] fears that her children will be kidnapped, disappeared, sold off for body parts or in the case of [the third applicant], sold into prostitution.
·     Women in North Macedonia are kidnapped by Albanians and taken or sold off into prostitution.
In the course of the review, the following claims were raised on the material:
·     [The first applicant’s] physical and mental health will make her more vulnerable in North Macedonia to further harm.
·     [The first applicant] would face access to adequate mental health care in North Macedonia.
·     Despite the VMRO-DPMNE now being in power in North Macedonia[2] [the first applicant] continues to remain at risk of harm due to local level-threats by Albanian nationalists, targeting by opposition political parties, factionalism within the VMRO-DPMNE.
·     [The first applicant]’s gender compounding the risk she faced as a politically active woman.
[2] The national and presidential elections held in 2024 resulted in the VMRO-DPMNE being elected the Government of North Macedonia according: >
A copy of a document identified as [the first applicant]’s VMRO-DPMNE membership book, with an accompanying English translation was provided with the protection visa application form. In various written statements provided to the Department and to the Tribunal, [the first applicant] detailed her interested in the VMRO-DPMNE and what lead her to join that political party in 1998. The Tribunal accepts that [the first applicant] became a member of the VMRO-DPMNE and was supportive of that political party.
However, the Tribunal has real difficulty in accepting the narrative that [the first applicant] has ever been previously harmed in North Macedonia because of her membership or involvement with the VMRO-DPMNE for the following reasons.
The evidence is that [the second applicant] arrived in Australia by himself [in] January 2014 holding a vocational education and training sector visa. The Tribunal was told, consistent with the written material, that [the second applicant] was coming to Australia to learn English. It is curious to the Tribunal’s way of thinking that [the first applicant] and their children would not be included as dependents on [the second applicant]’s visa and travel with him to Australia at that time when, according to the material:
·     [The first applicant] received threats for organising a protest [in] May 2001 in [City 1], Skopje and [City 3] which she reported to police.
·     [The first applicant] was threatened, called names, with a focus on the fact that she is a woman and was told to go home and that she was ‘loose’ and there was a physical fight in September 2022 during a confrontation she had as leader of an organising committee, where she was told that she would be liquidated and that people would have her way with her.
·     [The first applicant]’s son [Son A] died [in] July 2004, and she suspected that the death of her son was because she was involved with her political party and that the death was payback, believing he was poisoned.
·     Two days after [the second applicant] received the autopsy report concerning her son’s death, her father-in-law also passed away and she was suspicious of that.
·     There was a similar episode when [the first applicant] took her other son [the fourth applicant] to a hospital for an injection.
·     During this time, prior to both her husband and her subsequent departure from North Macedonia to Australia [in] April 2014, the threats against her did not stop, and she would receive telephone threats to the point that she needed to change her telephone number, and she was concerned about her family and children.
·     Individuals who are Albanians in appearance would come to her work place and ask about her, threaten her, and because of this, [the first applicant] engaged in security personnel.
·     At a meeting held around the May 2008 elections in [City 2], there was a verbal and physical attack upon [the first applicant] by an Albanian element, and those individuals knew [the first applicant] by name and threatened to kill her whole family.
·     [The first applicant] reported the threats with the help of a party representative, but police did not take any action against the individuals she had reported.
·     In May 2008 a big meeting was organised by the VMRO-DPMNE in Skopje where [the first applicant] was confronted by nationalist elements of the opposition party and she received threats against her life and her family, and she did not report this incident to police because of past experience of police doing nothing.

The material also referred to various incidents occurring during that time between VMRO-DPMNE and its opponents which did not involve [the first applicant].
It is even more curious that, given those claimed events which required [the first applicant] to relocate with her children to her mother and father’s house for security reasons after [the second applicant] had departed North Macedonia to Australia, she would not take her children with her when she came to Australia. The explanation provided that the children were not taken with [the first applicant] to Australia because an aunt who was providing accommodation to [the second applicant] had no more room was unpersuasive. The Tribunal is not satisfied that a lack of room in existing accommodation at an Australian relative’s house would stop [the first applicant] applying for dependent visas for her children to come with her to Australia if the claimed experiences of what occurred in North Macedonia had occurred.
The Tribunal also queried the intentions held by [the first and second applicants] when they initially arrived in Australia, given the claimed narrative about what had previously happened to [the first applicant] in North Macedonia prior to her first arrival in Australia [in] April 2014. The Tribunal was told that the family’s intention had not initially been to migrant permanently to Australia, but this had changed given the events that occurred when [the first and second applicants] voluntarily returned to North Macedonia in 2017.
The Tribunal found the timing of the protection visa applications on 2 May 2018, in circumstances where [the first applicant] had initially arrived in Australia [in] April 2014 with claimed experiences of past harm and claimed fear of future harm in that country, to be very suspicious. The Tribunal accepts that when [the first applicant] arrived in Australia [in] April 2014, she held a student visa that allowed her to stay temporarily in Australia until 14 September 2015, but given that this visa was temporary in nature, and would require her to depart Australia at the end date of the visa, the Tribunal finds it odd that protection visas would not be lodged soon after [the first applicant] arrived in Australia, or soon after [the first applicant] arrived in Australia with her children [in] February 2015, if the claimed narrative about past experiences of harm was true.
The Tribunal’s assessment is the claim that the applicants did not intent to stay in Australia permanently after their initial arrival in Australia was designed to overcome inevitable question about why it took four years for protection visa application forms to be lodged, and the inference available that the reason for the delay in applying for protection was because there was no risk of harm to the applicants, and the protection visas had been lodged for reasons not connected with Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal is not persuaded that, if [the first applicant] had experienced the harm she claimed to have experienced, and threats were made to her family, and she and her children had been required to relocate to live with her parents for security reasons prior to her initial arrival in Australia, she would enter Australia and have an intention to return to that country on completion of either her studies or her husband’s studies.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that a passage of time from her initial arrival in Australia, to her and her husband’s return to North Macedonia in 2017, would result in either of them thinking that they faced little risk of harm in that country, given what has been claimed occurred. The timing of the protection visa application, in those circumstances, demonstrates to the Tribunal that the protection visa application has been lodged for other reasons.
Surrounding the Tribunal’s concerns about the credibility of the protection claims in light of [the first and second applicants] voluntary return to North Macedonia in September 2017 so that [the second applicant] could have dental treatment in that country is that fact that, following the claimed assault, it was claimed that the couple fled to [Country 2], but did not seek asylum in that country despite being able to do so.[3] The couple returned to North Macedonia from [Country 2] before returning to Australia, and stayed at a monastery in hiding before departing North Macedonia to Australia.
[3] According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees website, a person can submit a protection application at regional asylum offices and asylum units of the [Country 2] Government within [Country 2]: [deleted].
The explanation that the couple already had return tickets to Australia departing from North Macedonia, which is a reason why they left [Country 2] without seeking asylum and returned to the country from which they fled, combined with financial difficulty and flights were hard to find, they held visa to return to Australia, had children in Australia, and that they felt quite safe at the monastery where they were hiding, is not persuasive for a couple of reasons.
First, the letter from [the] hostess at [a monastery] in [Village], North Macedonia, makes it clear that [the first and second applicants] travelled to the monastery before departing for [Country 2] and later returned to the monastery. If the couple felt safe in the monastery, there would have been no reason for them to depart the monastery and travel to [Country 2] in the first place. Also curious is the fact that is apparent corroborative evidence was not provided to the delegate, and was only provided to the Tribunal during the course of the review. The explanation that this document was not provided because the applicants did not have a lawyer is without merit. As demonstrated by the size of the Department file, the applicants were able to provide documents they claimed supported their claims. The Tribunal thinks it more likely that the document was obtained after the protection visa was refused in order to lend credibility to the claims, not because its contents are true.
Second, at the time [the first and second applicants] were in [Country 2], they held temporary visas to enter and remain in Australia (as did their children). There would be no guarantee that the applicants would be able to remain permanently in Australia after the expiration of those visas in May 2018, which as of September 2017, was 8 months away. In those circumstances, the Tribunal finds it more likely that not that, had [the first applicant] been attacked and held as claimed and faced a risk of future harm in North Macedonia, the couple would have applied for asylum in [Country 2] rather than take the risk of returning to North Macedonia.
Third, the fact that [the first and second applicants]’s children were in Australia may have been an incentive to return to Australia, but the Tribunal is not persuaded that finances would stop the couple from making alternative arrangements to return to Australia from [Country 2] if [the first applicant] had been harmed in September 2017 in North Macedonia as claimed The Tribunal is not persuaded that finances would compel [the first and second applicants] to return to North Macedonia despite the immediate past experience by [the first applicant] of being harmed in that country.
The argument was that [the first applicant] had no fear of returning to North Macedonia until her experiences in that country in September 2017 caused her to fear future harm. As the Tribunal has considered earlier, the Tribunal is not satisfied that some or all of the applicants would not have applied for protection visas shortly after their initial arrival if any of the events claimed to have been experienced by [the first applicant] were true. But more incredulous than that is the fact that, having returned to Australia [in] September 2017 from North Macedonia after experiencing harm in that country, the applicants did not lodge protection visas until 2 May 2018, about two weeks prior the existing vocational education and training sector visa held by the applicants expired.
Again, given the temporary nature of those vocational education and training sector visas, the fact that not only had [the first applicant] experienced harm (apparently consistently) in North Macedonia from 2001, and then when she returned to North Macedonia in 2017, she was again targeted for him, it was surprising that [the first applicant] would not lodge a protection visa after she returned to Australia in September 2017. The explanation for the timing of the protection was that [the first applicant] was ‘not informed’ and was lost, because she was suffering from anxiety and depression, is not persuasive. The medical evidence provided does not establish that [the first applicant] was incapable of lodging another protection visa application, nor does it explain why [the second applicant] and their children, who have, apparently been threatened with harm, would have been incapable of lodging protection visas. Given [the second applicant] also travelled to North Macedonia with [the first applicant] and was aware of what happened to her, the Tribunal finds it odd that no protection visa application was lodged soon after the return of the couple to Australia.
Further, the explanation that the applicants were planning to extend (meaning, apply for a new) student visas when the vocational education and training sector visas expired is not a persuasive argument about why they did not lodge protection visas shortly after their arrival in Australia. The explanation that the applicants were not aware of protection visas until around April 2018 is inconsistent with the claimed past experiences of harm, as it would be reasonable to expect that if any of the claimed harm had in fact been experienced by [the first applicant], proactive steps would have been taken to find out about protection visas. The claims about being in a bad shape, and not thinking clearly, does not persuade the Tribunal that the explanation for the delay in lodging the protection visa is credible.
The Tribunal thinks it more likely in all the circumstances of this case, the protection visa was lodged shortly before the existing vocational education and training sector visas were to expire because the applicants wanted to prolong their stay in Australia for reasons not connected to Australia’s protection obligations.
The Tribunal accepts that [the first applicant] provided a copy of a membership book of the VMRO-DPMNE with an accompanying English translation. That document was provided in the course of the protection visa application and was considered by the delegate. The Tribunal accepts that the document is genuine, and that [the first applicant] has been a member of the VMRO-DPMNE. However, given the concerns the Tribunal has about the credibility of the protection claims for the reasons discussed, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [the first applicant] was ever harmed in connection with any political activities (or for any other reason) in North Macedonia.
The Tribunal accepts that a written statement was provided which was attributed to a person named [name deleted]. The statement was written in Macedonian and an English translation was attached. That statement does not overcome the concerns that the Tribunal has about the credibility of the protection claims, given the timing of the protection visa applications and the fact that [the first and second applicants] voluntarily returned to North Macedonia and did not seek asylum in [Country 2]. The Tribunal gives the letter no weight for those reasons.
The applicant provided a number of medical documents concerning the protection claims. The Tribunal accepts that [the first and second applicants] had a child who died in North Macedonia in 2004 based on that document being provided. The medical report does not demonstrate any poisoning. Given the concerns about the credibility of the protection claims, the Tribunal finds that the likely explanation about the absence of any definite medical opinion that [the first and second applicants]’s son died of poisoning due to political retribution, is because [the first and second applicants’] son died for reasons not attributed to political retribution.
The Tribunal finds, on the evidence provided, that [the first applicant] has been a member of the VMRO-DPMNE. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [the first applicant] nor her family have ever been targeted for harm, or harmed, in North Macedonia because of [the first applicant’s] involvement with the VMRO-DPMNE. The Tribunal is not satisfied in those circumstances that there is a real chance of serious harm to [the first applicant] or her family or a real chance of significant harm to [the first applicant] or her family on their return to North Macedonia in connection with any membership of a political party, political opinion, or imputed political opinion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any evidence provided demonstrates that any person who has been a member of the VMRO-DPMNE, or held any role in its organisation or organising party activities, or family members of such people, face a real chance of serious harm in North Macedonia or a real risk of significant harm as a result of their removal from Australia to North Macedonia.
The Tribunal acknowledges that a number of medical reports, which are discussed later, purport to corroborate [the first applicant] claimed past experiences of harm in North Macedonia and her claimed genuine fear of future harm in North Macedonia. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the facts claimed in that medical report are from independent sources. The Tribunal finds that the claimed past experiences of harm and fear of future harm based on those facts are self-reported by [the first applicant]. Given the concerns the Tribunal has about the credibility of the protection claims as discussed in this decision record, the Tribunal has not given the corroboration in any weight in the assessment of whether [the first applicant] has previously been harmed in North Macedonia as she has claimed.
It was claimed that [the first applicant] would be denied access to medical treatment in North Macedonia.
As noted previously, medical reports were provided concerning [the first applicant]’s physical and mental health. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal was told that [the first applicant] injured herself at work in the early hours of 12 May 2018 and that the protection visa application was lodged that afternoon. The Tribunal was told that the protection visa application was lodged because of the work injury, but a post hearing submission contended that the evidence about the timing of the lodgement of the protection visa application was that it was lodged on the same day as the injury, not because of the injury and the protection visa application was in preparation for ‘some time. The Tribunal is not persuaded by this argument. Given the totality of the Tribunal’s concerns about the credibility of the protection claims, the Tribunal finds it more likely that not that the protection visa application form was lodged because [the first applicant] suffered a workplace injury incapacitating her from future employment.
A medical report provided for the Workplace Injury Commission and the applicant’s lawyer concerning a Workcover claim noted a past history of scoliosis, three caesarean sections, and a post incision hernia repair in 2012 and detailed that she was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia following the workplace accident and that [the first applicant] complains of ongoing epigastric pain, right groin pain, ongoing back pain and pain in both shoulders and that she is not fit for work.
The Tribunal was told that there was no medical treatment for her conditions in North Macedonia and that CT scans are not accessible. The Tribunal is not satisfied that claims about health infrastructure being underfunded, being financially inaccessible, or that a reference to corruption in the health care system in North Macedonia demonstrates a deliberate part on behalf of the North Macedonian healthcare system to deprive people access to healthcare, or that the material provided demonstrates that the North Macedonia authorities deliberately withhold medical treatment to their political opponents. Assertions that patient need to pay bribes to receive specialist treatment is not persecution nor is it significant harm.
The submission contained a link to the article from Balkan Insight titled ‘North Macedonian in 2024 political change fuels fear of return to ethnic strife’ dated 27 December 2024 which suggested that ‘politically and marginalised individuals in North Macedonia face barries to accessing public services, including medical care. The article does not demonstrate that this is the case, and makes no reference to denial of access to medical care. The Tribunal is not satisfied that [the first applicant] would be treated any differently from any other citizen of North Macedonia accessing available medical treatment for any physical condition she may have.
Medical reports were also provided in support of the claims included:
The report of [Dr D] dated 18 November 2024, who has been seeing [the first applicant] since 2 April 2019 (about 11 months after the protection visa application was lodged) following a referral from [the first applicant’s] general medical practitioner. The letter detailed that [the first applicant] had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder with post-traumatic stress disorder and has chronic pain from an injury incurred with work. The author wrote that he believed [the first applicant]’s protection claims and detailed that [the first applicant] has been receiving treatment for the last 5 years which involves medication and has been receiving psychotherapy and attending on a psychologist. The author stated that [the first applicant]’s mental state appeared consistent to the trauma experienced in North Macedonia, and suggested that it would be detrimental for [the first applicant]’s mental health if she returned to North Macedonia.
The report of [Dr E] dated 8 November 2024 and 26 June 2024 detailing that [the first applicant] and her family have been patients of [Dr E] since 2014 when the family migrated to Australia and that [the first applicant] has been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, a recurrent right inguinal hernia surgery and umbilical hernia surgery, chronic back pain / injury and chronic pain syndrome. The report also detailed that [the first applicant] had reported symptoms of anxiety, low and depressed mood, and inability to sleep, feeling unsafe, nightmares, flashbacks, excessive rumination about the past, difficulty focusing/concentrating and worries about an uncertain future and the consequences if the family were to return to North Macedonia. The report noted that [the first applicant] treatment mainly consisted of cognitive behavioural therapy supported by psychologist [Dr F] and psychiatrist [Dr D].
The report of [Mr F] dated 27 November 2024 detailing that he has been treating [the first applicant] since July 2018 for chronic post traumatic stress disorder, which later developed into symptom disorder with predominant pain and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood as a result of a workplace injury in a low pay / high risk environment. It was detailed that this exacerbated [the first applicant’s] trauma symptomology and made her daily coping more compromised. It was suggested that if [the first applicant] returned to North Macedonia, she would be placed in a psychoemotionally tortuous environment. The report declared that [the first applicant] would be at serious risk of a complete mental breakdown in North Macedonia. The report detailed that [the first applicant] is provided with medication, counselling cognitive behaviour therapy support, medical treatment and psychological therapy.

The report of [Dr G] which was undated but translated from Macedonian to English on 26 November 2024 detailing that [the first applicant] was a patient of that doctor from 2005 to 2014 when she migrated to Australia. It detailed that from 2005 until 2014 [the first applicant] had no notable medical conditions or issued expect for a cold and a hernia which resolved and from which [the first applicant] recovered. The letter detailed that, in the author’s opinion, the Macedonian health care system could not support [the first applicant] noting her current medical conditions because the possibility for treatment and specialist treatment of the diseases is very limited and, in some cases, not available.
There was also a letter dated 16 December 2024 from [the first applicant]’s lawyers for her Workcover claim to her representative in the review of the decision refusing to grant [the first applicant] a protection visa which detail that [the first applicant] lodged a Workcover claim on 27 March 2024 for injuries sustained on 12 May 2018 which included three hernias, diverticulitis, back, bilateral shoulders and chronic pain. It detailed that if [the first applicant] was receiving weekly payments and medical and like expenses for inguinal hernia injury, but not for the back, bilateral shoulder, chronic pain syndrome and diverticulitis which had been rejected by Workcover. The letter advised that if [the first applicant] returned to North Macedonia, her weekly payments and medical and like expenses would cease unless she was able to satisfy Workcover that she has no current work capacity and that the insurer was, in the opinion of the lawyers, terminate [the first applicant] ongoing weekly payments and, for ongoing medical expenses, only providers approved under Worksafe can provide ongoing medical treatment, with prior approval for treatment provides outside of Australia being required. It was claimed that her Workcover claim would be greatly impacted and/or jeopardised if she cannot remain in Australia.
The Tribunal’s assessment of the medical evidence is that it demonstrates that [the first applicant] is traumatised from the loss of her son [Son A] and the injuries as a result of her workplace accident in May 2018. The Tribunal is not satisfied for the reasons discussed, that any of the trauma relates to any of the other claimed past events in North Macedonia. The Tribunal accepts that [the first applicant] receives weekly payments, and
The material provided does not demonstrate, in the Tribunal’s opinion, that medical treatment in North Macedonia would be deliberately withheld from [the first applicant] for any of her medical conditions because of her race, religion, nationality, membership of any social group or political opinion. The Tribunal is satisfied that if there were any such systemic and discriminatory conduct by the health service, it would be readily provided in support of the protection claims. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any such systemic and discriminatory conduct in the North Macedonian health system because of a person’s race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
It is claimed that the existing weekly payments and payments for medical and the like expenses will cease if [the first applicant] is removed from Australia to North Macedonia. The Tribunal accepts that this is possible, but is not satisfied that this constitutes persecution of a real risk of significant harm as a result of [the first applicant] removal from Australia to North Macedonia because, in those circumstances, the removal of the financial support would be done through the auspicious of Australian authorities, not those of North Macedonia. Further, there is no evidence that the lack of financial support would be done deliberately to cause [the first applicant] harm.
The Tribunal accepts that [the first applicant] currently receives medication and sees a psychologist and psychiatrist in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that [the first applicant] has ongoing physical injuries.
However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that medication to treat [the first applicant] is not available in North Macedonia, or that there are no psychological treatments available in North Macedonia. The claimed lack of possibility for treatment is limited to the report of [Dr G], who is a general practitioner and just made a statement that the medical health care system could not support [the first applicant] and that treatment is very limited and, in some cases, not available in Macedonia.
It was not accompanied by any analysis of what [the first applicant] treatment in North Macedonia would involve, nor an identification of how treatment is delivered in North Macedonia for a person with the same physical and mental health problems as [the first applicant]. Nor did the letter detail the author’s experience of service delivery for any comparable patients and the outcomes of that service delivery. The report was limited to a statement without any accompanying detail. The Tribunal is not satisfied, in the absence of more, that it can give any weight to an assertion as broad as that contained in the letter.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that [the first applicant] would not be able to access whatever medical care is available to every other citizen who has the same physical and mental heath problems as [the first applicant]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that there is no adequate healthcare system in North Macedonia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that [the first applicant] and her family would not be able to subsist in North Macedonia returning to that country from Australia. The submission that [the first applicant] has no financial means to pay for private healthcare in North Macedonia does not address the fact that there is public healthcare in North Macedonia. The fact that there may be underfunding resulting in treatment being delayed or not available does not equate to significant harm as defined in the Migration Act.
Concerning the claim that [the first applicant] fears that her children, who are now adults, will be kidnapped in North Macedonia, have their body parts ‘sold off’ or that in the case of [the third applicant], be ‘sold into prostitution,’ the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of any of those events occurring. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that there is a real chance of kidnapping in North Macedonia, or people having their ’body parts’ sold off or being sold into prostitution.
The Tribunal’s assessment is that [the first applicant] may genuinely worry about what the future may hold for her children, but that does not equate to there being a real chance of any those events occurring, especially in light of the fact that the Tribunal is not satisfied about any of the claimed past experiences of harm occurring in North Macedonia other than the fact that [the first applicant]’s son died in infancy.
Considering all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that if the applicants are removed from Australia to North Macedonia, [the first applicant] will not be harmed because of her membership of a political party in that country, whether by acts of violence or denial of healthcare. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the other applicants will be harmed because of [the first applicant]’s membership of a political party in that country.
Member of the same family unit
The applicants provided documentary evidence to demonstrate their familial relationship to each other. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are a member of the same family unit.
However, as the Tribunal has found that none of the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act, it follows that each applicant is not a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act.
CONCLUSION
Refugee
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm to either [of the applicants] in North Macedonia because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Therefore, none of the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Complementary protection
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk of significant harm to either [of the applicants] as a result of their removal from Australia to North Macedonia.
Therefore, none of the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Member of the same unit
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either [of the applicants] are members of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act.
Therefore, none of the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Migration Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision dated 12 February 2019 refusing to grant each applicant a protection visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  13 November 2024; 18 December 2024; 10 February 2025
Representative for the applicants:     Ms Cathrine Burnett (MARN: 0324641)
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…