1911230 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by Venezuelan citizens. The applicants claimed they held anti-government and anti-corruption opinions, which led to them facing threats, robbery, bribery, and attempted kidnapping by pro-government paramilitary groups, forcing the first applicant to resign from her position at a state-owned corporation. The applicants also appeared in mainstream media after engaging in protests and social media activities. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering whether they had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion, and whether they would face significant harm if returned to Venezuela, thus qualifying for complementary protection. The court also had to assess the credibility of the applicants' evidence, considering its spontaneity and detail despite some incoherence attributed to distress, and whether their activities in Australia were undertaken with the purpose of strengthening their protection claims. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the availability of effective state protection in Venezuela and whether a modification of the applicants' behaviour would be required to avoid harm. The court also had to address the separate consideration of the older child's claim, as his passport and visa for another country had expired, and the younger children were considered members of the family unit.

The court found that while the applicants' evidence was spontaneous and detailed, some incoherence was present due to distress. It was determined that the applicants' activities in Australia were not for the purpose of strengthening their claim, but rather a consequence of deepening economic and social conditions in Venezuela. The court concluded that effective state protection was not available in Venezuela and that modification of behaviour was not required. The court noted that the older child's claim would be considered separately due to expired travel documents for another country, while the younger children were considered members of the family unit.

The court remitted the decision for reconsideration.