2316569 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Vanuatu. The applicant claimed to fear harm from natural disasters, specifically earthquakes and volcanic activity, and highlighted the limited resources and inadequate infrastructure in Vanuatu to respond to such events. The applicant also stated that her family, including her elderly mother, remained in Vanuatu. The Department had previously informed the applicant that a decision could be made on the information provided in her application, without further opportunity to present additional evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's fear of harm arising from natural disasters, coupled with the state's inability to provide adequate assistance, met the criteria for refugee protection or complementary protection. Specifically, the court had to determine if the circumstances described constituted "significant harm" as contemplated by the relevant legislation, and whether the lack of state capacity to mitigate the effects of natural disasters could be considered an act or omission by a perpetrator for the purposes of establishing a claim for protection.

The court reasoned that the criteria for refugee protection, as defined by the Refugee Convention and Australian law, require a well-founded fear of persecution based on specific grounds, which typically involve acts or omissions by a perpetrator. The court found that while the applicant's description of life in Vanuatu and the threats posed by natural disasters was acknowledged, these circumstances, in themselves, did not constitute persecution by a state or non-state actor. The court further noted that for complementary protection, significant harm requires an act or omission by a perpetrator, and the inability of the Vanuatu government to adequately respond to natural disasters did not, on its own, satisfy this requirement. The court affirmed the decision under review.