1618710 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming entitlement to protection in Australia as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds. The dispute arose because the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communication and did not appear at the hearing, leaving their claims unsupported and untested. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm on complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or significant harm does not satisfy the statutory requirements; it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim. The Tribunal is not obligated to construct or advance the applicant's case. In this instance, the applicant had made numerous unsupported claims in their application, and this situation had not improved despite the Tribunal's attempts to facilitate a hearing for the claims to be tested. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).