2313431 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Timor-Leste, sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse her application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(b) and (c) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which relate to being a member of the same family unit as a person holding a protection visa, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for facing persecution or significant harm. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, and whether there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm in Timor-Leste due to her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of removal due to economic or security conditions. A further issue was the applicant's claim of being a victim of family violence and childlessness, and the veracity of the claims made in her protection visa application form, particularly in light of her assertion that she was not married in a church but "in accordance with culture."

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not established she was a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the protection visa criteria, as she conceded this was not the basis of her claim and provided no evidence to support it. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of suffering serious harm in Timor-Leste. This conclusion was based on the applicant's concession that her claims regarding the economic and security situation were not her own and were included in the application without her instructions. Regarding her claims of domestic violence and childlessness, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility. Specifically, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies between her visa application form, which stated she was unmarried and had not experienced harm, and her oral evidence detailing marital issues and alleged assaults. The Tribunal also found her explanations regarding how the visa application was completed and her inability to identify the person who assisted her to be vague and unconvincing, suggesting the application was lodged for reasons unrelated to Australia's protection obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.