2315760 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to his home country. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning his claims of disagreement with the Vanuatu government's policies against Islam, lack of freedom of speech, and fear of arbitrary arrest, detention, and harm by government agents. The case was heard by Paul Windsor, a member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that his removal to Vanuatu would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," considering the available country information and the applicant's onus to establish all elements of his claim.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It applied the principles that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the applicant bears the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. The Tribunal noted that no DFAT Country Information Report was available for Vanuatu. The applicant's claims were not found to satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as he did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) by being a family member of someone who held a protection visa.