1711795 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Brazil. The applicant sought to establish that he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Brazil. His claims were based on economic hardship and distress stemming from a natural disaster in 2011, political instability, and a fear of a drug cartel member.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or alternatively, whether there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and the objective evidence regarding conditions in Brazil.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his claims of losing friends and assets in a 2011 natural disaster, economic hardship, and political turmoil. However, the applicant stated he did not experience harm in Brazil, did not relocate for financial reasons, and believed the authorities could protect him. He also claimed he feared a drug dealer associated with a cartel, but provided no corroborating evidence such as police reports or photographs. The Tribunal applied the principles that distress or anxiety caused by a past event would not amount to persecution, and that a fear must be well-founded. It also considered the provisions of sections 36(2A) and (2B) regarding significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The applicant's claims of fear were not substantiated by credible evidence, and he had not demonstrated that he would be unable to access protection from the authorities in Brazil.