1505567 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a citizen of Tonga. The applicant claimed to fear psychological harm and harassment from his District head in Tonga. The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal, and his representative also indicated they would not attend. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the review without further steps to enable the applicant's appearance.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to Tonga, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the statutory elements necessary to establish these fears.

The Tribunal reasoned that a mere claim of fear of persecution is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met. Citing *MIEA v Guo*, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's written claims lacked detail regarding the reasons for the alleged harassment and what steps had been taken to address these issues prior to coming to Australia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to attend his Department of Immigration and Border Protection interview as a factor, deeming it unreasonable for someone fearing serious harm to be unwilling or unable to provide information. Based on the evidence and the applicant's claims, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal found no well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of significant harm on the basis of the claims made, either in Tonga or as a consequence of removal from Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. The applicants therefore did not satisfy the criteria set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa, nor the related criteria in s.36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.