2319955 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant, who is from Vanuatu, claimed that natural disasters had severely impacted his family's farm, leading to property damage and financial hardship. He also expressed fear of future natural disasters, experiencing nightmares, and stated an intention to work in Australia to support his family. The delegate was not satisfied that there was a real chance or risk of the applicant suffering serious or significant harm if removed to Vanuatu.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) by virtue of section 5H(1) of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a substantial ground for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims regarding natural disasters, property damage, and financial impact did not constitute persecution for the reasons outlined in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act. While acknowledging the devastating effects of natural disasters, the Tribunal found that these events, and the applicant's fear of them, did not meet the threshold for persecution as defined by the Act. The applicant's stated intention to work in Australia was also not a basis for a Protection visa. The Tribunal noted that the government of Vanuatu maintains relief supplies for disasters, indicating some level of protection measures. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa under either the refugee or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.