2401229 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Samoan national. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Samoa due to his change of religious affiliation from the Congregational Christian Church to a new faith. He alleged his family, who held positions within the church, felt disgraced by his conversion and had threatened violence, even burning his belongings. He also expressed concerns about his family's connections within the Samoan police force, believing they would not protect him and that his father could locate him anywhere on the island.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which relates to having a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection based on a real risk of significant harm. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant's fear of persecution or significant harm was well-founded, considering the evidence presented and the provisions of the Act regarding the definition of a refugee, well-founded fear, and significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the legislative framework. It noted that a well-founded fear of persecution requires a real chance of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and that this risk must relate to all areas of the receiving country. The court also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The court found that the applicant's claims regarding his family's threats and his father's influence within the police force did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The court implicitly found that effective protection measures were available in Samoa and that the applicant could reasonably relocate within the country to avoid any potential harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.