2320003 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of Samoa, a Protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2021 and applied for the visa in October 2023, claiming he feared returning to Samoa due to elevated poverty, unemployment, and potential mistreatment from fellow Samoans who might resent his perceived improved status from living in Australia. He also cited concerns about his ability to afford medication and healthcare following cardiac surgery.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Samoa under section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). The court was required to consider the applicant's claims of severe economic adversity, potential mistreatment, and his concerns regarding his health and ability to access necessary medical care in Samoa.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a Protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's health issues and his concerns about economic hardship, the court noted that the applicant claimed he did not experience harm in Samoa and that the pervasive economic hardships afflicted the entire country. Crucially, the court found that the applicant would be able to return to Samoa, live with his family, and subsist, and that the Samoan government provided subsidised healthcare. Therefore, the court was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee or complementary protection grounds.