2316684 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Tonga. The applicant arrived in Australia on several temporary visas between 2016 and 2022, returning to Tonga each time, and applied for a protection visa shortly after her last visa ceased in August 2023. The applicant asserted that she feared persecution due to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, specifically referencing a volcanic eruption and tsunami that occurred in Tonga in January 2022. The decision was made by Member Kate Chapple of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicant was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if she qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant qualified as a family member of someone who met these criteria, as per sections 36(2)(b) and (c).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims. While acknowledging the occurrence of the volcanic eruption and tsunami in Tonga and the general impacts of climate change, the Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions and accompanying reports did not detail her personal circumstances or the specific, ongoing impact of these events on her. The Tribunal noted that section 5AAA(2) of the Act places the onus on the applicant to specify all particulars of her claim and provide sufficient evidence. Without evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 5J, or a real risk of significant harm as defined in section 36(2A), the applicant could not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she had not satisfied the requirements of section 36(2)(b) or (c) as there was no evidence that she was a family member of a person who met the criteria for a protection visa.