1927648 (Refugee)

The matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Venezuela. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to their involvement in protests, their work for an NGO and in the public sector, and their community volunteer activities. The applicant also alleged close work and social media associations with individuals targeted by authorities, and that a friend involved in protests had been killed, allegedly by government agents, while other friends had been jailed or had left the country. The applicant applied for the visa one day after their student visa ceased, arguing it was reasonable to prioritise their studies. The decision under review was made by Kate Chapple.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether they were a refugee owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, considering the country information regarding Venezuela, and determining if there was a real chance of persecution. The court also considered whether the applicant's conduct in Australia, including participation in protests and social media activity, was solely to strengthen their claim, as per section 5J(6) of the Act.

The court found the applicant's oral and written evidence to be credible, consistent, and persuasive, accepting their account of their experiences in Venezuela. The court noted that the country information for Venezuela extensively detailed significant human rights violations, repression of dissent, arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings, indicating a heightened risk for individuals involved in anti-government activities. The court also considered the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's "do not travel" advice for Venezuela, which highlighted the volatile political situation, common violent crime, and risks associated with demonstrations. The court concluded that there was a real chance of targeted and serious harm to the applicant.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.