1913400 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to be a refugee or to be owed complementary protection. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory criteria for either a refugee or complementary protection claim. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or, alternatively, whether they met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. The reasoning was that the applicant's claims were unsupported and lacked detail, particularly regarding their alleged debt to an unscrupulous lender. The Tribunal emphasised that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish their claim, and a decision-maker is not obliged to construct the case for them. The applicant's failure to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments meant their claims could not be adequately tested, particularly concerning the nexus to Convention reasons and the specifics of their alleged financial predicament. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for either refugee status or complementary protection.