2317816 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a protection visa applicant against a decision of the Tribunal affirming a previous decision not to grant the visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in June 2015 and remained in Australia unlawfully from December 2015 until August 2018, claimed to fear harm from villagers in Tonga due to his inability to support himself financially. He attributed his circumstances to significant economic downturns following COVID-19, a volcanic eruption impacting infrastructure, and decreased job opportunities in his homeland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the decision to refuse the protection visa. This required determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) or by satisfying the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The court also considered whether the applicant's claims of economic hardship and fear of harm from villagers constituted grounds for protection under the Act.

The court reasoned that the applicant's claims regarding economic hardship and the general strain on infrastructure in Tonga due to COVID-19 and the volcanic eruption did not, in themselves, meet the criteria for refugee status or complementary protection. The court noted that the applicant had not provided details of work undertaken in Tonga and that his parents were alive and living there, with whom he maintained weekly contact. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee under section 5H, nor did he demonstrate a real risk of suffering significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa). The court found that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria in section 36(2).

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