2318311 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Tongan male, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The core of the dispute lay in the applicant's failure to attend his scheduled hearing before the Tribunal and the vague nature of his claims regarding fear of persecution. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation to attend or to a subsequent request for further details and evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the statutory elements necessary to establish such a fear, given his lack of attendance and the unsubstantiated nature of his claims.

The court reasoned that a mere claim of fear of persecution is insufficient; the applicant bears the onus of persuading the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met. The applicant's written claims were found to be extremely vague and lacked detail, with no corroborating evidence provided. Furthermore, the court noted the significant delay in the applicant's protection visa application, nearly four years after his arrival, and his voluntary return to Tonga in 2017 and 2019, which undermined the credibility of his asserted fear. The court also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

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