2119220 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Uganda, sought review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 1993 and his previous visa was cancelled in 2015. He claimed to have fled Uganda as a young child due to the death of his parents during the Idi Amin regime and subsequent civil war, living in Kenya before arriving in Australia. He asserted a fear of returning to Uganda due to his lack of familiarity with the country, his Australian accent, inability to speak the local language, and the potential for being mistaken for a criminal or terrorist due to his family's past political affiliations with the Uganda People's Congress Party. He also highlighted that he had no family remaining in Uganda to claim him and feared being subjected to force, coercion, torture, harassment, or inhumane detention conditions.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm upon removal from Australia to Uganda, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which concerns substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's submissions regarding his orphaned status, his upbringing in Australia, his lack of connection to Uganda, and his fear of being identified as a foreigner and targeted. It noted the applicant's assertion that his family was involved with the Uganda People's Congress Party and that his parents died during the civil war, making him an "easy target." The court also took into account the applicant's statement that he lacked documentation to prove his Ugandan identity and could not speak the language, increasing his vulnerability. The court found that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations and satisfied the criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act*.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act*.