2007245 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicants, who were white South African citizens, claimed to fear persecution in South Africa due to their race and the circumstances surrounding the sale of their farm. The court was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and whether there was a real chance of persecution upon return to South Africa. Alternatively, the court considered whether there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to South Africa, as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The court considered various documentary evidence, including the applicants' visa applications, media articles, medical letters, police clearance certificates, and a submission from the applicants' daughter. The delegate's decision, which was under review, had found that the applicants were able to subsist in South Africa due to their pension, proceeds from the farm sale managed by their son, and financial support from their children. The delegate also concluded that the attempted carjacking experienced by the primary applicant was random and opportunistic, not a targeted attack by parties associated with the farm sale. Furthermore, the delegate found that the applicants' travel back to South Africa after lodging their protection visa claims undermined their credibility and the claimed urgency of their fears.

The delegate ultimately found that the applicants' fears regarding "white genocide" and general crime were not well-founded, referencing country information and the fact that they had travelled safely within South Africa. Consequently, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for being refugees under section 5H(1) of the Act. Regarding claims of homelessness, the delegate determined that the applicants' family support network and social security in South Africa would enable them to find accommodation. While acknowledging potential hardship, the delegate found no indication that the applicants would face arbitrary death, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and therefore was not satisfied that they would suffer significant harm upon return. The decision under review was affirmed.