2314665 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared mistreatment and hardship upon return to Tonga due to family issues, bullying, and limited employment opportunities. He also asserted that his mother was at risk of homelessness due to his uncle's threats to evict her from her current residence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims of persecution and the availability of effective protection measures in Tonga.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Tonga, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court noted that the applicant's claims regarding family conflict and economic hardship did not meet the threshold for significant harm as defined by the Act, and that Tonga was considered the receiving country. The court also considered the applicant's evidence regarding his work history in Australia and his relationship with his Australian partner, but concluded these did not alter the assessment of his protection claims.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Accordingly, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, and the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.