2314223 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of the Solomon Islands, sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant had entered Australia under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme, working in low-paid employment, and applied for the visa primarily to extend their stay in Australia to continue working as their work visa and contract were nearing expiry. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The court was required to determine 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, as defined by section 5H(1)(a) and section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Alternatively, the court had to consider whether, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to the Solomon Islands, there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm, as defined by section 36(2)(aa) and section 36(2A) of the Act.

The court found that the applicant did not claim to have suffered harm in the Solomon Islands for any of the specified refugee reasons. Furthermore, the applicant did not claim to fear future persecution for such reasons upon return. The court accepted that the applicant's primary motivation for applying for the protection visa was to extend their stay in Australia to continue working, rather than to seek protection from persecution. Consequently, the applicant failed to satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). The court also found that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there was no evidence of a real risk of significant harm upon return to the Solomon Islands for the reasons contemplated by the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.