2217070 (Refugee)

The applicant, a grandmother, sought a protection visa, claiming she and her granddaughter faced persecution in the Philippines due to her partner's former role as a police officer. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning the risk of significant harm if returned to the Philippines. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had established substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia, there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims regarding threats from a Chinese criminal syndicate, stemming from her partner's involvement in a 2016 raid on an illegal online gambling operation. The Tribunal also considered whether the available state protection in the Philippines was adequate.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's partner had been involved in the raid and that he and his family had subsequently received threats. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated a real risk of significant harm upon return. This was partly due to the passage of time since the operation, the partner's retirement from the police force, and the availability of state protection. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating evidence regarding the specific nature and ongoing threat posed by the syndicate, including the absence of explicit mention of the syndicate or a death threat in the initial police blotter report filed by the partner.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. The outcome was that the protection visa application was refused.