2311207 (Refugee)

The applicant, a divorced Tamil woman from Sri Lanka, sought a protection visa, alleging she had been sexually assaulted, harassed, and threatened by a local shop owner. The applicant contended that these experiences, coupled with her lack of family support and psychological vulnerability, amounted to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and that she would not receive adequate state protection in Sri Lanka, nor could she safely relocate internally. The decision under review was made by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established that she would be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) if returned to Sri Lanka, and whether she could access effective protection from the Sri Lankan state or safely relocate internally. The court was required to consider the applicant's specific circumstances, including her gender, ethnicity, marital status, lack of family support, and psychological vulnerability, in assessing the risk of harm and the availability of state protection.

The court found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider the cumulative impact of the applicant's experiences and her vulnerabilities. It was held that the delegate's assessment of the risk of future harm and the availability of state protection was flawed, particularly in relation to the applicant's lack of social support networks and her psychological state. The court concluded that the delegate had not properly applied the principles of complementary protection, and that the decision under review was affected by jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the delegate for redetermination according to law.