2318515 (Refugee)

The case concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Vanuatu. The applicant claimed that recurring natural disasters and environmental challenges in Vanuatu posed a significant threat to his safety and quality of life, and that he feared adverse consequences from these events. The applicant did not claim to have personally experienced harm in Vanuatu, though he mentioned his home had been destroyed by a cyclone at some point.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee or eligible for complementary protection, or a member of the family unit of such a person. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in the Act, or if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal considered country information indicating Vanuatu's high exposure to natural hazards and low coping capacity, noting that cyclones are a significant hazard. However, the Tribunal found that natural disasters, even those causing widespread damage and affecting safety and quality of life, do not constitute persecution as defined by the *Migration Act*. The Tribunal also noted that while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been ratified by Australia, it had not been incorporated into Australian law, and decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee were not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal applied the principles that the applicant bears the responsibility to establish their claim with sufficient evidence and that a fear of general risks faced by the population, rather than a personal risk of persecution or significant harm, is insufficient for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that there was no evidence to suggest the applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act, as he did not meet the requirements for a refugee or complementary protection himself.