2202829 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by three applicants from Colombia. The primary applicant alleged he feared persecution due to his political opinion, specifically his active support for left-wing political parties and his follower status of Senator Gustavo Petro Urrego. He claimed to have received death threats, including direct threats to his wife and child, from paramilitary groups associated with government-supporting factions, which led to their departure from Colombia. The case was before the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in s 5J(1) of the Act, and if there was a real chance they would suffer persecution or serious harm if returned to Colombia. Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicants met the complementary protection criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which involves a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the first applicant's statement detailing his political activism, the threats received, and the circumstances of his family's departure. It also had regard to a translated psychologist's report concerning the second applicant, which corroborated the political nature of the threats and the violent intimidation experienced by the first applicant. The report detailed the second applicant's significant anxiety and fear stemming from these events, and the impact on her daily life. Furthermore, a psychological report for the third applicant, a child, indicated her fear and anxiety, particularly when hearing motorcycles, and her seeking of protection. The Tribunal noted that the country information, including assessments from the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was taken into account.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. This indicates that the Tribunal found that the existing decision did not adequately address the claims or evidence presented, and a fresh assessment was required. The specific orders or directions for reconsideration were not detailed in the provided text.