2316972 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for merits review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, arrived in Australia on a temporary work visa in February 2023 and subsequently applied for a protection visa in August 2023. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee within the meaning of s 5H of the Act, or a member of the same family unit as such a person. This involved assessing whether the applicant held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, as she claimed to disagree with the Vanuatu Government's policies against Islam and alleged one-party rule and lack of freedom of speech. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to support her claims and whether she had lost her entitlement to a hearing due to a failure to respond to an invitation to provide information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, had not provided any evidence of experiencing harm in Vanuatu. Her claims were based on her stated disagreement with government policies and a general assertion of potential arrest and imprisonment if she expressed different opinions. However, she did not elaborate on the specific policies, explain how she might express differing opinions, or provide any evidence to substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide requested information to the Tribunal by the stipulated deadline, resulting in the cancellation of her hearing. Without sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.