2009136 (Refugee)

This case concerned an appeal by a Mongolian national against the decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant had been employed as a government official from 2006 until his departure from Mongolia in 2017, working in a special department from 2012 and participating in high-profile operations. He claimed that following two specific operations in 2012 and 2014, where his identity was compromised, he was subjected to assaults and threats, leading him to fear persecution from associates of those targeted if he returned to Mongolia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the criteria for a protection visa, which include having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The court examined the nature of the applicant's work, the specific operations he highlighted, and the evidence of threats and assaults he claimed to have suffered. Crucially, the Tribunal assessed the credibility of the applicant's claims, including the completeness and consistency of the information provided, and considered whether effective protection measures were available to him in Mongolia.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had participated in high-profile operations and his identity had been compromised in two specific instances, the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Specifically, regarding the arrest of a former public official in 2012, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's presence and role in supporting senior personnel but found that his rank at the time and the context of the operation did not support his claim of personally leading the operation or being a primary target for retribution. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the piecemeal and incomplete nature of the applicant's disclosures and the delay in seeking protection. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.