2012534 (Refugee)

The applicants sought review of a decision not to grant them protection visas. The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by Catherine Wall, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, specifically whether they met the definition of a "refugee" under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, the "complementary protection criterion" under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether such persecution would involve serious harm. The second applicant's claim was dependent on the first applicant's eligibility.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had provided limited and unspecific information regarding the first applicant's claims of damage to his home, protests against authorities, and threats from gangs. The incidents described occurred over six years prior, and there was no current information about the authorities' continued interest in the applicant or his family's present circumstances. Crucially, the applicants had not responded to an invitation to provide further information to the Department or the Tribunal. Given the lack of sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, and therefore could not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as family members.