2314613 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Tonga. The applicant claimed there was no freedom of speech in Tonga and that the Tongan government was controlled by a single party, asserting that nowhere in Tonga was safe. However, the applicant did not claim to have suffered any harm in Tonga. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing for a detailed examination of her claims, but she did not attend.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified for protection as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or on complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if 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 if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Tonga.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear or risk does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness. It is the applicant's responsibility to specify the particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal is not obligated to build the applicant's case. In this instance, the applicant's claims about freedom of speech and government control in Tonga were unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the applicant's assertion that nowhere in Tonga was safe was contradicted by her own admission of not having suffered any harm there. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not claim to be a family member of someone who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Tonga. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.