1934909 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of his protection visa application. The applicant claimed to have left Sri Lanka due to political persecution as a member and village leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party, alleging harassment, verbal abuse, and inaction by the police when he sought assistance. He also contended that his political opponents, associated with Mahinda Rajapakse, were still powerful and would seek revenge, leading to torture and abduction if he returned.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion. Additionally, the court considered the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa), assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm. This involved evaluating the applicant's credibility, the consistency of his claims, and the available country information regarding the political situation in Sri Lanka and the willingness and capacity of the authorities to provide protection.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's claims and evidence. While he initially claimed to be a strong party member and village leader who actively mobilised against Mahinda Rajapakse's rule, his later statements suggested he was not deeply involved in politics but was perceived as such by others. The court also noted that the applicant's claims of physical harm and injury were made late in the process and were not substantiated. Furthermore, the court considered that a family dispute over land inheritance, which the applicant mentioned, did not involve any harm or fear of harm. Based on these credibility issues and the available country information, the court concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

The decision under review was affirmed.