2401100 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an appeal by an applicant for a protection visa who failed to attend a scheduled hearing. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Vanuatu due to economic hardship, alleged debts with a former employer, and general poverty, stating that laws in Vanuatu did not protect ordinary people and that his former employer's associates were cruel. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing and had received reminders, and therefore exercised its discretion under section 426A of the Migration Act 1958 to proceed with the decision without the applicant's attendance.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's obligation to provide sufficient relevant information and evidence to substantiate his claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail to support his claims of persecution or significant harm. While the applicant referred to economic hardship in Vanuatu, the Tribunal found this did not relate to any of the enumerated reasons for persecution under section 5J of the Act. The applicant's claims regarding a debt with an "ex-employee" and general fear of "ex-employed" individuals lacked specificity regarding the nature, origin, or amount of the debt, or the circumstances of any alleged threats or intimidation. The Tribunal noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to present their case and provide evidence, and it is not required to make the case for them.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.