2316058 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision regarding a protection visa. The applicant, from Samoa, claimed she could not return to her home country due to economic hardship and the risk of crime, asserting that Samoan authorities would not protect her. The Tribunal, however, noted that the applicant had provided no tangible or probative evidence to substantiate these claims. The applicant had made multiple trips to Australia between June 2018 and December 2021, but did not lodge her protection visa application until September 2023, over five years after her first arrival and approximately 21 months after her last arrival.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm or a real chance of serious harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Samoa, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards her under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of economic hardship and fear of crime, and to assess the genuineness and well-foundedness of these fears in light of the evidence provided and the significant delay in lodging the application.

The Tribunal reasoned that a substantial delay in lodging a protection visa application can cast doubt on the genuineness of an applicant's fear of persecution, citing *Anadaraj Subramaniam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* (1998) VG310 of 1997. The Tribunal found that the applicant's extraordinary delay, without any explanation, significantly undermined the credibility of her claims and suggested they did not reflect the reality of her circumstances. The Tribunal also emphasised that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish her claim, and that it was not required to make or assist in making the applicant's case.

The Tribunal concluded that the significant delay in lodging the protection visa application cast considerable doubt on the genuineness of the applicant's asserted fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory requirements for a protection visa, and affirmed the decision under review.