1924429 (Refugee)

The primary applicant, a citizen of Uganda, sought a protection visa, with her granddaughter included as a secondary applicant. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to Uganda, alleging she had been accused of making anti-government statements, being a spy, and orchestrating an anti-government letter by a former official. She also asserted experiencing systematic discriminatory conduct, psychological and physical harassment, and threats to her life from individuals visiting her family in Uganda. The applicant contended that the Ugandan government was unable to protect her from such persecution.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and consider the availability of protection from the Ugandan government.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines. It found the applicant's account of being appointed to her position despite being considered a spy to be implausible, and her claims regarding security officers investigating her unsupported. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in her account of the anti-government letter and found her assertion that the former official still posed a threat to be unpersuasive and lacking evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that she was considered a spy with anti-government opinions by the Ugandan government or its agencies, nor that she would face persecution upon return. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's family had been threatened or that she would be placed on a blacklist. The Tribunal also found that the applicant was not an opposition politician and had not engaged in public expression of anti-government views that would place her at risk of persecution.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958. As a result, the applicants were unable to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) and were therefore ineligible for the visa.