2016844 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Sri Lankan national, who claimed to be a young Tamil Hindu bus driver, against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The applicant alleged he was questioned, assaulted, and threatened by individuals he believed to be army or paramilitary personnel after transporting passengers in April 2012. He feared he would be killed or disappear, citing the fate of a neighbour accused of LTTE links. The applicant had arrived in Australia by boat in July 2012 and had remained onshore since.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning an imputed political opinion and the risk of harm, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of country information, the credibility of his account, and the provisions of the Act regarding the risk of significant harm, including the possibility of internal relocation or protection from authorities.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding that the applicant's claims were not sufficiently credible to warrant a protection visa. It noted that the civil war had ended by the time of the alleged incident, making it unclear why the applicant would be of particular interest to authorities. The court also found a supporting statement from a family lawyer to be unreliable and that country information indicated a low risk of official harassment. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no unique or exceptional circumstances justifying a referral for ministerial intervention, as it was possible for the applicant to apply personally. The court concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm.