1929548 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a New Zealand citizen who claimed to fear harm from his biological father and the father's associates. The applicant alleged that his father had a history of violence towards his mother and had attempted to drown him and his sibling, driven by resentment over losing his first family. The applicant had not provided documentary evidence to the Department and raised new claims at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal found New Zealand to be the receiving country, as the applicant was a citizen who had not provided evidence of a right to reside in a safe third country.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act, specifically concerning the risk of suffering significant harm if returned to New Zealand. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims of fear of his father and the father's associates, and determining if such fear constituted a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the Act, including consideration of complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's voluntary return to New Zealand in 1999 and the lack of contact with his father since 1986.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear of his father and the historical context of violence, the Tribunal noted the significant delay in lodging the protection visa application and the applicant's voluntary return to New Zealand in 1999, during which he stayed with maternal relatives for a week without any contact with his father. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that he would suffer significant harm upon return to New Zealand, particularly given the absence of any contact with his father or paternal relatives since 1986, and the lack of evidence suggesting ongoing threats from gang associates.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.