1906167 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Colombia. The applicant claimed to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criteria, alleging he and his brother were targets of an illegal armed group involved in the illicit drug trade. This group was allegedly responsible for the deaths of his father, a local politician and social leader who opposed the drug trade, and his brother. The applicant also claimed to have been shot at by his father's assassin. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires the applicant to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. This involved determining whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, and whether the harm apprehended was inflicted by the State or by agents of the State, or by non-State actors where the State was unable or unwilling to protect the applicant.

The Tribunal considered evidence including the applicant's testimony, the testimony of two of his brothers, and country information. It found that the applicant was a citizen of Colombia and did not have a right to enter and reside in a third country. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's father was killed due to his opposition to the illicit drug trade and his efforts to involve the police and National Army. It also accepted that the applicant and his brother had been threatened and that another brother was killed by the same armed group. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided testimony to the police following his father's death, which led to the identification of the killer, and that he had subsequently been relocated for protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal remitted the decision under review with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the Act.