2315808 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Vanuatu, sought a protection visa in Australia. The applicant claimed to have been subjected to violence and extortion by gang members in Vanuatu, stemming from an alleged car accident and subsequent demands for payment. The applicant stated that he came to Australia under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme to work and repay a debt to these gang members, and that he feared for his safety and that of his family if returned to Vanuatu. The applicant did not provide any submissions to the Tribunal and did not attend the hearing.

The legal issues before the Tribunal 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 under section 36(2)(aa) on complementary protection grounds. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine 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 Vanuatu.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a national of Vanuatu and not excluded from protection. However, the Tribunal noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. Due to the applicant's failure to attend the hearing or provide further information, the Tribunal was unable to explore the claims with him. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to be satisfied that he was attacked by a gang or that a gang attempted to extort money from him. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant suffered serious harm in Vanuatu for a refugee reason, nor that he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu. The Tribunal considered the claims singularly and cumulatively but found that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.