AZT15 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Hartnett concerning an application by AZT15 (the applicant) against the Minister for Immigration. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Tribunal, which had found that Australia did not owe the applicant protection obligations under the *Refugees Convention* or under section 36(2)(aa) of the relevant legislation. The Tribunal's decision was based on its assessment of the applicant's individual circumstances in conjunction with country information regarding Malta.

The core legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the real chance of persecution or significant harm to the applicant upon return to Malta, and whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the availability of state protection in Malta. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a member of a particular social group for whom there was a real chance of persecution was legally sound, and whether its assessment of the Maltese state's capacity and willingness to protect the applicant was consistent with established legal principles.

Judge Hartnett's reasoning affirmed the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal had accepted that certain groups, such as "convicted criminal" and "mental health sufferers in Malta," constituted particular social groups, and that the applicant was a member of these. However, the Tribunal concluded, after considering all available country information and the applicant's individual circumstances, that there was not a real chance of persecution on account of membership in these groups, nor any other Convention or non-Convention related reason. The Tribunal also found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Malta. This conclusion was supported by the Tribunal's assessment of Malta's legal framework, police force, and judicial system, finding them to be reasonably effective and impartial, and capable of providing the applicant with a level of state protection in accordance with *MIMA v Respondents S152/2003* and *MIAC v MZYYL [2012] GCAFC 147*. The Tribunal noted the Maltese High Commissioner's reluctance to accept the applicant's return but did not view this as indicative of a failure to provide protection.

Consequently, Judge Hartnett dismissed the application, upholding the Tribunal's decision that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).