2015557 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Singapore, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was before the Tribunal for review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Singapore, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Singapore.

The Tribunal reasoned that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it, citing *MIEA v Guo* and *Prasad v MIEA*. The applicant's decision not to attend a hearing meant the Tribunal could not address significant gaps in the claims, including who the applicant feared harm from, the nature and specifics of past harm in Singapore, and why the applicant continued to fear harm. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the applicant had suffered serious harm in Singapore, would face adverse attention, or would encounter difficulties finding employment or accommodation. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance of the applicant facing serious harm or significant harm if returned to Singapore.

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