1420930 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a citizen of Brazil. The applicant had arrived in Australia in March 2011 and had applied for a protection visa in August 2014, which was refused by the delegate in November 2014. The applicant's claims for protection stemmed from alleged threats and pressure from a former employer in Brazil, who was a major wholesaler, due to the applicant's involvement in organising producers to negotiate directly with sellers, thereby reducing the wholesaler's profit margins. The applicant also alleged political persecution related to his involvement with a political party and his candidacy for a municipal official position.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five Convention reasons, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. A significant secondary issue concerned whether the applicant had failed to take all possible steps to avail himself of the right to enter and reside in a country other than Australia, specifically referencing his ability to enter Mercosur and Schengen countries, as provided for under section 36(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the substance of his claims in light of the available evidence and relevant policy guidelines.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant bore the responsibility to provide sufficient detail and evidence to establish his claim, and that it was not required to make the applicant's case for him or uncritically accept all his allegations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been offered an interview to further present his claims but had not attended. The delegate had found that the applicant had access to effective state protection in Mercosur countries and a present right to enter and reside in them, as well as the right to enter Schengen countries on a visa-free basis. Consequently, the delegate concluded that Australia had no protection obligations under section 36(3) of the Act. While the delegate had grave reservations about the applicant's credibility, including his failure to attend the interview, the delay in his application, and his return visit to Brazil, the delegate did not make a definitive credibility finding as the section 36(3) issue was considered dispositive. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.