2314736 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an individual who claimed to be a member of the LGBTI+ community and feared harassment in Samoa due to their sexual orientation. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Samoa. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's obligation to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims, and that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, nor does a claim of risk of significant harm establish its existence. The applicant bears the responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence. In this instance, the applicant's claim of being a member of the LGBTI+ community and fearing harassment in Samoa was found to be unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Samoa.

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