2401230 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Samoa. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon removal to Samoa due to an altercation during a rugby game and subsequent comments made by villagers about his financial dependence on his parents. The court was required to determine 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 or entitled to complementary protection.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 36(2)(a) and section 5J of the Act. Alternatively, the court considered whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Samoa, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as per the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

The court found that the applicant's claim of having had a fight that did not result in injury and was resolved by parents did not constitute serious harm. Similarly, verbal comments about financial dependence were not considered significant harm. The court also noted that Samoa has an effective police service and an independent judiciary, indicating the availability of effective state protection. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.