2210099 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for protection visas made by individuals who claimed to be nationals of the Republic of North Macedonia. The applicants alleged they had been subjected to an attack in March 2018, which they linked to the applicant's prior involvement as a reservist in the Macedonian Army during the 2001 conflict. The core dispute revolved around the credibility of the applicants' account of the March 2018 incident and whether their claimed experiences constituted persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the definition of a "refugee" under section 5H of the Migration Act, specifically whether they held a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their country of nationality, the Republic of North Macedonia. This involved assessing the plausibility of their narrative regarding the alleged attack and considering whether any fear of harm was based on the prescribed grounds. The Tribunal also had to consider the provisions relating to "significant harm" and the availability of effective protection measures within North Macedonia, as well as whether the applicants could reasonably relocate within the country to avoid any risk.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' narrative of the March 2018 incident, finding it to be far-fetched, implausible, and incapable of belief without independent corroborating evidence, despite acknowledging general consistency in their accounts. While accepting that one applicant had served in the Macedonian Army as a reservist during the 2001 conflict, the Tribunal found no suggestion that this involvement led to direct combat or hostilities, nor that the applicant had a role that would place him at risk of persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to North Macedonia, and that effective protection measures were available.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act.