2321194 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm, torture, or death upon return to Vanuatu due to political payback killings between his clan and opposition candidates, alleging he was a leader who exposed a corrupt candidate. He also claimed to have been attacked multiple times and that corrupt officials were paid to hunt him. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant's claims lacked detail, and the applicant did not provide further information when invited to do so.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether such persecution would involve serious harm and be a real chance in all areas of Vanuatu. The Tribunal also considered whether there was a real risk of significant harm if the applicant were removed from Australia, as per section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal Member, Sean Baker, found that the applicant's claims of political violence were not credible. During the hearing, the applicant initially focused on economic hardship and natural disasters as his concerns, stating no one would harm him on return. It was only when the Member raised the political violence claims from his application that the applicant mentioned them, attributing his failure to disclose them earlier to the events having occurred 12 years prior and being resolved, and claiming a colleague had assisted with his application. The Tribunal Member found the applicant's explanation for not raising these significant claims earlier, and for attributing them to a colleague's input, to be unconvincing. The Member concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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