2314467 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Vanuatu. The applicant claimed he feared persecution and significant harm upon return to Vanuatu due to ongoing family land disputes, which had previously led to physical assault and threats. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or a non-citizen in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant had provided sufficient detail and evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Vanuatu, and whether the Tribunal could make a decision in the applicant's absence. The AAT considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," and the requirement for an applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the statutory elements are made out. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing, despite receiving multiple notifications.

The AAT reasoned that it was the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of his claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that the Tribunal was not obliged to establish or assist in establishing the claim. Citing *BZADA v MIC and RRT* [2013] FCA 1062, the Tribunal noted that a failure to attend a hearing prevented it from testing and examining the applicant's claims. Given the lack of detail in the applicant's written claims regarding the specific nature of the feared harm and the lack of substantiating evidence, and in light of the applicant's non-appearance at the hearing, the AAT was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.