1708947 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant, who arrived in Australia in October 2016. The applicant's claims appeared to relate to threats from a money lender due to an inability to repay a debt, following the confiscation of his home by local government and insufficient compensation. The applicant failed to attend an interview with the delegate and subsequently did not appear for a hearing before the Tribunal, despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact him via email and SMS.

The primary legal issues before the court 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 under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing complementary protection. This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also considered the implications of the applicant's failure to attend the interview and hearing.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims related to a private lending dispute, which did not appear to fall within the definition of persecution for refugee status or the criteria for complementary protection. The court noted the lack of detail provided by the applicant regarding his alleged debt and the threats he faced. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing, despite repeated attempts by the Tribunal to facilitate his participation, meant that the Tribunal was entitled to make a decision on the available information. The court applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84 and the relevant sections of the *Migration Act* concerning refugee and complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.