1905956 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse protection visas to citizens of Zimbabwe. The applicants had applied for the visas in 2016, and the delegate had refused them on the basis that the first applicant would not be at risk if she returned to Zimbabwe. Domestic violence had not been specifically raised or dealt with by the delegate, despite the factual circumstances suggesting its relevance. The Tribunal, presided over by Jessica Henderson, heard evidence from the first applicant, who presented as an honest and forthright individual, appearing to suffer from post-natal depression and potentially post-traumatic stress disorder.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. This required determining if she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of persecution in all areas of Zimbabwe. The Tribunal also considered mandatory considerations outlined in the Refugee Law and Complimentary Protection Guidelines, as well as country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the first applicant's evidence was consistent and detailed behaviour indicative of coercive control, even though physical violence was not present. This behaviour included verbal abuse, control over her appearance and communication, and dismissal of her pregnancy-related sickness. The Tribunal noted that while domestic violence was not explicitly argued before the delegate, the applicant's statement contained significant indicia of coercive control that should have prompted further inquiry. The Tribunal considered the applicant's fear of returning to Zimbabwe due to her experiences and the potential lack of support from her family, which would lead to disgrace in her culture.

The Tribunal concluded that the delegate's decision did not adequately address the factual matrix presented, particularly concerning the indicia of coercive control and domestic violence. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the delegate for reconsideration, with directions to properly assess the applicant's claims, including her potential membership in a particular social group and the risk of persecution arising from her experiences.