2318290 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a protection visa application made by a Tongan male. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Tonga due to his political opinions, economic conditions, climate change fears, and lack of freedom of speech and expression, alleging he had suffered psychological, mental, and economic harm. The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation, and did not provide further information or evidence requested by the Tribunal, including medical evidence to support his claims of harm.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or met the criteria for complementary protection. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had demonstrated a real chance of suffering persecution or significant harm upon return to Tonga, considering the vagueness of his claims and the lack of supporting evidence. The Tribunal also considered its power under section 426A of the Act to make a decision without the applicant's attendance.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to satisfy the onus of proof required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Citing *MIEA v Guo*, the Tribunal noted that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must persuade the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be vague and unsubstantiated, particularly given the opportunity provided to particularise them and provide supporting evidence, including medical documentation. The significant delay in applying for protection, despite claiming to have suffered harm for nearly six years, further undermined the credibility of his claims. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm in Tonga for any reason in the reasonably foreseeable future, nor did he meet the criteria for complementary protection.

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