1930482 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Zimbabwe. The applicant claimed he could not return to his home country due to his political activism and fear of persecution. The court was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal from Australia to Zimbabwe would result in a real risk of significant harm, as per section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The court considered the applicant's stated ethnicity as African and religion as Christian, alongside his extensive employment history and educational background in Zimbabwe. Crucially, the applicant asserted he was an active member and officeholder of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an opposition political party advocating for human rights and good governance. The court acknowledged that if the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a), he might still qualify for the visa under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was directed to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The decision under review was remitted.