2300878 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant from Vanuatu seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Vanuatu due to limited work opportunities, low pay, and difficulty making a living, and sought to work in Australia to improve his financial situation and support his family. The Department had previously refused the visa, finding no well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of significant harm upon return to Vanuatu.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced economic difficulties in Vanuatu, these difficulties were not for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Consequently, the economic harm feared did not meet the criteria for refugee status under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, nor did it constitute significant harm under section 36(2A). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided evidence to the Tribunal and had requested the matter be determined on the papers.

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)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant also did not satisfy the criterion of being a member of the same family unit as a person who met those criteria.