2305282 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of a married couple who had resided in Australia for 37 years. The applicants, who had two children and several grandchildren in Australia, one of whom was an Australian citizen, sought to have a previous decision reviewed. The wife claimed she feared discrimination upon return to the Republic of North Macedonia due to her membership in the particular social group of women, asserting that women were treated as less important than men. The husband made no claims. Both applicants, through their representative, waived their right to a hearing and requested a decision based on the submitted papers, indicating an intention to seek ministerial intervention based on compelling circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This required determining if the wife had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, or if either applicant faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was also tasked with assessing whether the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to establish their claims, given their waiver of a hearing and request for a decision on the papers.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicants to specify and establish all statutory elements of their claim, and that the Tribunal was not obliged to make or assist in making their case. The applicants' representative conceded that the applicants did not meet the definition of a refugee. The Tribunal noted that the wife's claims were based on a general observation of women's treatment in Macedonia, which, from Australia, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' long residence in Australia and their family ties, acknowledging these as potential factors for ministerial intervention, but these were not grounds for the Tribunal to grant protection visas.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.