Skip to content

2021

1709834 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1003

This applicant claimed he feared being killed by the Taliban if returned to Pakistan as he had resisted an attempt to recruit him. Will the AAT be satisfied that his is a genuine refugee and in need of protection?

1700623 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 918

This applicant claims she fears reprisals for falling in love is against their family’s wishes. Will the AAT be satisfied that this applicant is at risk of serious harm if returned to India?

1727969 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1021

The AAT looks closely into an applicant’s claim that his life is in danger if he is returned back to his home country due to religious persecution.

1935570 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 804

Will the AAT be satisfied the applicant was a genuine refugee and owed protection by Australia or is there a real risk of significant harm if he was returned to China.

1801291 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 4584

In this decision, the AAT considers if protection visa should be granted to a member of the same family unit as a person whom Australia already has protection obligations.

1802556 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 4550

Should a protection visa granted 11 years ago be cancelled in the light of new information that suggest the applicant provided incorrect information in his original application form?

1621933 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 4486

The AAT looks closely into an applicant’s claim that his life is in danger if he is returned back to his home country.

2010168 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 4634

A former child solider argued he needed protection from malevolent forces still operating in his home country of Liberia.


2020

1622275 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2146

The AAT had to determine whether an applicant from Myanmar had a well-founded fear of persecution in Taiwan

1723852 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2159

Here the AAT had to consider records from Albania which cast doubt on the applicant’s claim for protection.

1801345 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1739

In this case, the AAT had to decide whether high-profile Brazilian activists could live elsewhere or whether Australia owed them protection.

1731457 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2361

A single Iraqi man living in Australia for ten years claimed to be in an exceptionally vulnerable position if he were to return to Iraq.

1812821 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1275

The AAT must decide whether Jordan is safe for a young family who want to raise their children in the Christian faith.

1619347 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1544

The AAT must decide whether Ethiopia is safe for a former journalist to return to when, until recently, it was known as an oppressive surveillance state.

1707044 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 1376

The AAT has found a Yemeni national who converted to Christianity was at risk of harm if he returned to his home area.

1820986 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 973

An applicant argues he is at risk of significant harm in Sri Lanka because of his political profile and status as a returned asylum seeker.

1614946 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 660

In this case, the applicant’s generalised fears about his personal safety and of the effects of economic and political instability in his home country do not amount to a risk of significant harm.

1825788 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 428

The AAT did not have the power to review the merits of the applicant’s claim because the visa had been wrongly granted.

1615507 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6511

In this matter, the AAT affirmed a decision refusing to grant a protection visa. The AAT was not satisfied the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution because of their religion.

1703014 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6551

The AAT found the applicant was unable to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa as they were not genuinely seeking protection and had knowingly submitted incorrect information.

1813689 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 348

The Tribunal reviewed whether the applicant’s visa should be cancelled because of incorrect and incomplete information provided in their protection visa application.

1612610 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 179

The Tribunal affirmed a decision to not grant a protection visa based on medical reports, but made a recommendation for ministerial intervention on compassionate grounds.


2019

1604403 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 2489

Two individuals arrived in Australia separately on temporary visas, where they met and commenced a relationship. 

That relationship produced two children. They remained in Australia on a series of temporary and bridging visas or unlawfully.

In June 2011 the applicants applied for protection visas. These applications were refused. However they were granted further bridging visas, and due to a change in legislation were permitted to apply a second time for a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion which previously did not exist. The two children also applied for protection visas.

1607505 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1446

A mother and daughter applied for review of decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse their applications for protection visas.

Australia has an obligation under the Migration Act 1958 to protect individuals who can satisfy one of two criteria, broadly, a ‘well-founded fear of persecution and ‘a real risk of significant harm’ should they be returned to their country of origin. 

The Tribunal considered evidence such as the issues faced by women in Pakistan, written and oral submissions from the applicants and information about the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM).

1907863 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1407

The applicant applied to the AAT for review of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to grant her a protection visa. The AAT found that the applicant did not claim to fear serious or significant harm in Bulgaria and admitted that she applied for the protection visa so that she can remain in Australia with her Australian citizen children.

1608377 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1115

In this decision the AAT assessed whether the applicant met the refugee criterion or came within Australia’s complementary protection obligations. The applicant argued that because he feared harm from Egyptian authorities, nowhere was safe for him if he returned. The AAT found the applicant applied for a protection visa because he wanted to remain in Australia with his wife.

1800306 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 852

The Department requires non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards. The provision of incorrect information or bogus documents may lead to visa cancellation. The issue before the AAT in this case is whether the applicant had provided incorrect information in his Protection visa application.

1604609 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1472

In her protection visa application, the applicant said that she left India to further her studies and to be relieved from the social and cultural pressure to marry. She said that arranged marriages were common in India and she feared that her family would force her to marry if she returned. The AAT considered whether the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm on her return to India.

1905923 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1126

The applicant applied for a Protection visa because he feared physical harm from a well-connected politician in his home country of Thailand. The applicant asked the AAT to review the Department of Home Affairs’ decision not to grant him a Protection visa.

1816669 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 795

The Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants Protection visas. The applicants were a married couple from Iraq who stated that they feared Shia militia groups would harm them if they returned. The AAT remitted the decision to the Department for reconsideration finding the applicants met the refugee criterion for a Protection visa.

1618712 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 602

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the political party in power if he returned to Bangladesh because he was a supporter of an opposing political party.

1614274 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5642

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas. The applicants were a married couple from Fiji who claimed to fear harm from the Fijian government if they returned, primarily because of their anti-government opinions.

1835826 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 354

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant feared she would be harmed if she returned to Cambodia but the AAT was not satisfied that she met the requirements for the visa after having regard to relevant country information. 

1730528 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 157

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs' decision to cancel the applicant’s Protection visa finding the applicant provided incorrect information in her application for the visa. The AAT held serious concerns about the credibility of the applicant's claims. 

1708371 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4974

The AAT set aside the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to cancel the applicants’ Protection visas. The Department found that the applicants, Faili Kurds from Iran, provided incorrect information in their visa applications.

1602764 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 212

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse the applicant’s Protection visa. The applicant claimed that he feared returning to China because he believed he would be persecuted for being a Roman Catholic. The AAT found the applicant manufactured his evidence.

1614678 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4645

The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants a Protection visa. The applicants, a husband and wife from India, applied for the visa on the basis of the wife’s claim that she feared harm from the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), a powerful ruling party of Punjab. The AAT did not find the applicant to be a credible witness, citing inconsistencies in her evidence.

1816091 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4251

The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, citing significant concerns about the credibility of the applicant. The applicant's claims changed over the course of the proceedings. 

1602009 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4644

The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant, from Fiji, claimed to be afraid of the government because of her involvement in the illegal conduct of an organisation.


2018

1810335 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3927

The applicant’s protection visa was cancelled after the Department found he had provided incorrect answers with his Protection visa application. The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision.

1600050 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3888

The applicant claimed to fear harm if returned to Indonesia from debt collectors acting on behalf of disgruntled pilgrims. The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse the visa based on issues with the applicant’s credibility.

1600816 (Refugee) 2018 AATA 2526

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant’s Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear for his safety as a former Internal Security Forces officer in Lebanon. The AAT affirmed the decision.

1512023 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2906

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the Awami League due to his political activity. The AAT affirmed the decision. 

1702934 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2085

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the applicant’s Protection visa because they believed he had given incorrect answers on his visa application. The applicant listed his citizenship as Afghani but the delegate found that the applicant was a Pakistani citizen. After reviewing the applicant’s evidence and country information reports, the AAT set aside the original decision to cancel the visa. 

1509054 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2239

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Algeria because he no longer believed in Islam and extremists in his local area would target him.  The AAT affirmed the decision. 

1617804 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1693

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia because he was in a de facto relationship with his partner, something he claimed was not allowed under Islamic law. The AAT affirmed the decision.

1601597 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1420

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicants' Protection visas. The applicants were a couple from Fiji who claimed to fear persecution if they returned because they were staunch Methodists, and expressed their opposition to the 2006 Coup and the present government.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

1516895 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1323

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant claimed she fled Lebanon after suffering harassment, discrimination and threats, primarily at the hands of her fiancĂ©. The Tribunal affirmed the decision. 

1801792 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 665

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant's Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to India on the basis of his religious beliefs, specifically his devotion to Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS). He claimed members of the religious organisation were targeted for harm in India. The Tribunal affirmed the decision. 

1615725 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1255

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant’s Protection visa. The applicant claimed he could not return to Malaysia due to his homosexuality as he would be subject to discrimination and abuse. The Tribunal set aside the decision. 

1509786 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 715

An application made by a family of three for Protection visas was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant seeking protection claimed he would be persecuted if returned to Libya because of his association with the Gaddafi regime and his active participation in revolutionary activities. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration.

1620536 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 296

The applicant was refused a Protection visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as she was found not to face a real chance of serious harm in Malaysia. The applicant's reasons for her claim of protection were fear of her husband and the future of her child. The Tribunal affirmed the decision.

1419288 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 282

An application made by a family of three for Protection visas was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant seeking protection claimed he was at risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. The Tribunal remitted the decision with the direction that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.

1512555 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2764

The applicant was refused a protection visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Tribunal affirmed this decision. The applicant claimed protection on the ground that a drug trafficker and his relative, who is a powerful public official, would harm him because of his involvement in a law enforcement operation in China during 1997.