2107520 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute arose from the cancellation of his resident return visa on character grounds, which precluded review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant's personal and criminal history, including a history of offending, formed the basis of the character grounds. He argued that he faced a risk of harm upon return to the United Kingdom due to his past criminal record, but also highlighted his long residence in Australia with his wife and step-family, and his eligibility for Australian pension and resettlement services. The matter was heard by Senior Member Denis Dragovic of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to the United Kingdom, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of "significant harm" as outlined in the Act, and whether any such risk was mitigated by the availability of protection or reasonable relocation within the United Kingdom.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's fear of harm stemmed from his criminal history and the potential stigma associated with being a known criminal. However, it found that low-level stigma and discrimination did not amount to serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive criminal history, acknowledging that while he expressed no excuses for his past conduct, his removal to the United Kingdom would not necessarily expose him to a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's long residence in Australia and his family ties, but these factors did not alter the assessment of risk upon return to the United Kingdom. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.