2000693 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be facing persecution in South Africa due to his race as a white Afrikaner, or Boer. The applicant asserted that discriminatory legislation, such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Employment Equity (EE), prevented him from securing employment and opportunities, leading to significant economic hardship. He also claimed that crime was growing and that employers would prefer to leave positions vacant rather than hire a white person, and that starting a business required a black partner with majority ownership. The decision reviewed was made by Peter Katsambanis.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted upon return to South Africa for one of the five reasons specified in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, for the purposes of section 36(2)(a). Secondly, if the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to South Africa, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as defined by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The court considered the applicant's claims regarding discriminatory employment practices and economic hardship in South Africa, including the impact of BEE legislation. It also noted the absence of a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) country information assessment for South Africa. The court applied the principles of refugee law and complementary protection, assessing whether the applicant's circumstances met the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court affirmed the decision under review.