2320671 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant, a citizen of Tonga, against a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he left Tonga due to political opinion, economic hardship, and concerns about climate change and freedom of speech. He alleged experiencing psychological, mental, economic, and verbal harm, and stated that Tongan authorities would not protect him if he returned. The Department of Home Affairs had invited the applicant to provide further information, but he did not respond. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) conducted a hearing via teleconference, assisted by a Tongan interpreter.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H, or if Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The AAT also considered whether the applicant qualified under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a member of the same family unit as a protection visa holder.

The AAT found that while the applicant provided identity documents and spoke through an interpreter, his evidence at the hearing contrasted with his written claims. Crucially, the applicant stated he had no fears or concerns about returning to Tonga, other than the struggle to earn a living. He confirmed he was not politically active and did not fear harm from the government or any specific individual. While he expressed concerns about job security and economic challenges in Tonga, the AAT concluded these did not amount to a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act. The AAT was satisfied the applicant was a Tongan citizen and that Tonga was his receiving country.

The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in section 36(2)(a) or (aa). Furthermore, the applicant had not contended that he satisfied section 36(2)(b) or (c) by being a member of the same family unit as a protection visa holder. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2).