1619431 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) considered an application for a protection visa made by an Irish citizen who had arrived in Australia in September 2013. The applicant claimed to have left Ireland due to a recession, difficulty finding work, and threats against him and his family, leading to depression and a fear for his life. He also asserted that the Irish police force was unreliable and biased. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). It also needed to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a right to enter and reside in another country, such as a European Union member state, which could affect Australia's protection obligations under section 36(3).

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and that Ireland was his receiving country. It noted that as a member of the European Union, Ireland offered the applicant the right to enter and reside in other EU member states. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail or evidence to satisfy the statutory elements of a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had previously requested a decision on the papers and had failed to attend the scheduled hearing, despite receiving an invitation via email to the last provided address, without providing a satisfactory explanation for his non-appearance. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.