2101427 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his protection visa application. The dispute centred on whether Australia had protection obligations towards him, specifically concerning his fear of returning to El Salvador due to threats from the criminal gang [Gang 1]. The applicant claimed he had been extorted by the gang on multiple occasions, forcing him to sell his assets and ultimately flee his home. He also raised concerns about his ability to find employment, access a pension, and support his family, as well as the impact on his mental health, if returned to El Salvador. The matter was heard by Rachelle Johnston.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, particularly whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing his claims of fear of harm from the [Gang 1] criminal gang in El Salvador, and whether this fear constituted a real risk of significant harm. Additionally, the court considered the applicant's concerns regarding his financial security, employment prospects, and mental well-being upon return to El Salvador, and whether these factors, in conjunction with the gang threat, engaged Australia's protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the relevant Act, which addresses complementary protection.

The court found the applicant to be a credible witness whose evidence was consistent and detailed. While accepting that the applicant was a citizen of El Salvador and that El Salvador was his receiving country, the court concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The reasoning focused on whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm, taking into account the applicant's claims of extortion and threats from [Gang 1], as well as his concerns about his future economic and mental well-being. The court applied the principles of refugee law and complementary protection, considering relevant guidelines and country information. The final outcome was that the delegate's decision to refuse the visa was affirmed.