1931553 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Zimbabwe. The applicant claimed she could not return to Zimbabwe due to persecution based on her actual and imputed political opinion as a member and supporter of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party. She alleged that her family had been targeted, beaten, tortured, and some had disappeared following the July 2018 elections due to their allegiance to the MDC, and that she, as a known financial supporter, would face similar dangers upon return.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for one of the five reasons specified in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, thereby meeting the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Secondly, if the refugee criterion was not met, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal from Australia to Zimbabwe, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thus satisfying the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence, including country information and guidelines prepared by government departments. It noted that the applicant had provided conflicting, inconsistent, and contradictory information over time. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that there were significant credibility concerns. Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the protection visa, was upheld.