2119467 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Peru, sought merits review by the Tribunal of a delegate's decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia on various student visas, with his last visa ceasing in September 2017, and he applied for a protection visa in October 2017. He failed to attend an interview with the delegate in October 2021 and subsequently failed to attend a scheduled Tribunal hearing in August 2023, despite receiving reminders. The Tribunal was therefore required to determine the application based on the available material.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who held a protection visa, and whether the applicant himself had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Peru. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of threats made to his family and his own alleged experiences of threats and attacks in Peru, as well as his assertion that Peruvian authorities could not protect him.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had declared in his application that no members of his family unit were included in his application and that he was making his own claims for protection. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who qualified for a protection visa. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were vague and lacked sufficient detail, particularly given his failure to attend the hearing or provide further information. The significant delay in applying for the protection visa also weighed against his claims.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.