2428893 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa. The applicant, who has resided in Australia since 1972, sought to challenge the affirmed decision not to grant him a protection visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant's circumstances, including his long-standing ties to Australia, the passing of his Australian citizen wife, the end of a long-term de facto relationship with an Australian citizen, and the presence of his children and grandchildren in Australia. The applicant also has significant personal challenges, including recent criminal charges and a son with multiple disabilities who relies on him for care.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a refugee under s 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to the United Kingdom, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved considering the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm" as outlined in the Act, as well as relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a refugee, as this involves a distinct set of considerations. Regarding complementary protection, the Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive family and social support network in Australia, including his children and grandchildren, and his former de facto partner, all of whom provide him with active support. While acknowledging the applicant's personal difficulties and the distress of his children at the prospect of his removal, the Tribunal found that these circumstances did not establish a real risk of significant harm in the United Kingdom, particularly in light of the applicant's long absence from that country and his lack of affective ties there. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's criminal offending, which, while acknowledged, did not in itself establish a claim for protection under the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal noted that the information presented might be of assistance in a request for Ministerial Intervention.