2211582 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, a protection visa. The applicant sought review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), but ultimately consented to a decision on the papers to enable her to pursue an application for ministerial intervention. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The applicant's claims for protection were based on fears of harm from the COVID-19 pandemic and economic hardship in the Philippines. She also highlighted her daughters' Australian citizenship and Indigenous heritage, and her own history of domestic violence perpetrated by her deceased Australian citizen partner, who she alleged used her visa status as a means of control. The Tribunal considered whether these claims constituted a fear of harm for a convention reason, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's fear of harm from the COVID-19 pandemic did not meet the threshold for a convention reason under s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, considering the applicant's circumstances, including the support available to her daughters through school and community, and the fact that the daughters were Australian citizens with Indigenous heritage, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon return to the Philippines. While acknowledging the applicant's history of domestic violence and the support provided by independent professionals, the Tribunal concluded that her claims, taken individually and cumulatively, did not meet the required thresholds for either refugee or complementary protection.

Despite affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, the Tribunal recommended that the applicant's case be referred to the Minister for consideration of intervention under s 417 of the Act. This recommendation was based on the applicant's circumstances, particularly concerning her daughters' Indigenous heritage and the need for them to remain in Australia to maintain their cultural connection, as well as the applicant's history as a victim of domestic violence.