2316949 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Vanuatu. The applicant claimed to have fled Vanuatu due to threats and violence from a money lender to whom he was indebted as a guarantor for a friend's loan. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Vanuatu.

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) by having a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding his financial difficulties, threats from the money lender, damage to his property, and physical assaults, as well as the availability of protection in Vanuatu, including the capacity of its police and judiciary.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims, while detailing significant distress and fear, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Vanuatu. This conclusion was influenced by the applicant's failure to report the incidents to the police or seek alternative relocation within Vanuatu, and the general country information suggesting the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.