1934989 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of South Africa, sought protection visas in Australia. They claimed to fear persecution in South Africa due to their race, specifically as white Afrikaner Boers, and alleged that they had been victims of racially motivated crimes, including an attempted murder. They also contended that economic policies such as Black Economic Empowerment disadvantaged white South Africans, making it difficult to conduct business, and that political dissent could lead to persecution. The delegate had accepted the factual basis of their claims but was not satisfied that they were targeted for reasons of race, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, thus finding they did not meet the criteria for a refugee under s 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The delegate also found they did not meet the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicants held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, and whether effective protection measures were available in South Africa. The Tribunal also had to consider whether, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to South Africa, there was a real risk that the applicants would suffer significant harm, as defined by the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. While accepting the applicants' accounts of events, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for the reasons specified in s 36(2)(a). The Tribunal considered the general crime rate in South Africa and noted that while some incidents might be racially motivated, the evidence did not demonstrate that the applicants were targeted for reasons of race, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group in a way that would engage Australia's protection obligations. Furthermore, the Tribunal implicitly found that effective protection measures were available in South Africa, or that the risks faced were general to the population, and therefore did not meet the threshold for significant harm under s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.