2117965 (Refugee)

The case involved three applicants seeking protection visas. The first two applicants, citizens of Peru, claimed to be survivors of domestic violence and members of a particular social group, specifically women who have experienced family violence. The third applicant, a citizen of [Country 1], was a member of the same family unit as the second applicant. The dispute centred on whether Australia had protection obligations towards these applicants under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The court was required to determine if the first and second applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Peru, and if they belonged to a particular social group. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the third applicant qualified for a protection visa as a member of the same family unit as another applicant who met the protection criteria.

The court accepted the applicants' identities and their status as citizens of Peru and [Country 1] respectively, with Peru and [Country 1] being their receiving countries. It found that the first applicant had a history of abuse within a long-term de facto relationship, including a violent incident where she was stabbed by her partner, who subsequently died. The court accepted that this constituted traumatic life events. Applying the principles of complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, the court was satisfied that the first and second applicants faced a real risk of significant harm. The court also found that the third applicant was a member of the same family unit as the second applicant, thereby satisfying s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first and second applicants satisfy s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, and the third applicant satisfy s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Migration Act on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the second applicant.