2415506 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1737

2415506 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1737 (10 July 2025)

Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2415506

Tribunal:  General Member M Bruce
Place:  Adelaide
Date:  10 July 2025

Corrigendum

Date of Corrigendum: 3 September 2025

Pursuant to s 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the following
alterations are made to the decision:
The Date on the front page of the written statement of reasons for the decision is altered to read: 10 July 2025.

AND

The Tribunal on the front page of the written statement of reasons for the decision is altered to read: General Member M Bruce.

Decision and Reasons for Decision

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2415506
Tribunal:  Max Bruce
Date:  24 June 2025
Place:  Adelaide
Decision:  The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 10 July 2025 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Philippines – particular social group – threats from money lenders – physical assault – fear of killing – state protection – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), 106, 348

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

ABAR15 v MIBP (No 2) (2016) 242 FCR 11

ABAR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2016] FCA 721

MIAC v MZYYL (2012) 207 FCR 211

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

Statement of reasons

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 May 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

BACKGROUND

The applicant, who claims to be a national of Philippines, applied for the visa on 28 February 2024. The applicant’s claims as stated before the Department are that:
a)    The applicant experienced financial problems in the Philippines, including the bankruptcy of his parents’ business.
b)    The applicant left the Philippines because of debts owed to relatives and friends which they were unable to repay.
c)    The applicant was “humiliated” and “harassed” by their creditors. The applicant’s property has been repossessed by their creditors.
d)    The applicant’s creditors will issue threats against the applicant’s life if they are returned to the Philippines.
e)    The applicant will be physically and mentally abused by their creditors if they are returned to the Philippines.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that:
a) The applicant had not claimed, nor did it appear on the material before the delegate, that the applicant would be harmed for any of the reasons in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, and
b) That, should the applicant be threatened by his creditors, country information before the delegate…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2415506 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2415506 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1737
Case: [2025] ARTA 1737
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case pertains to an individual from the Philippines who sought a protection visa in Australia. The applicant claimed persecution due to threats from money lenders and a physical assault, asserting that he belonged to a particular social group targeted by these individuals. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the decision of the earlier tribunal to deny the application for a protection visa. The legal issues before the court involved the definition of a particular social group, the applicant's membership in such a group, and whether he faced a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to the Philippines.

The court examined the applicant's membership in a particular social group, considering the threats from money lenders and the physical assault. The tribunal had previously determined that the applicant did not convincingly demonstrate his membership in such a group. The court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that he belonged to a group targeted by the money lenders. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's fear of being killed was not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court also assessed the availability of state protection in the Philippines, concluding that the applicant had not shown that state authorities were unable or unwilling to provide protection.

The court affirmed the earlier tribunal's decision, holding that the applicant's claims did not meet the required threshold for a protection visa. The applicant failed to establish his membership in a particular social group, and the fear of persecution was not well-founded. The court found no error in the tribunal's decision and upheld the denial of the protection visa application. The orders affirmed the tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Orders