2401267 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to Samoa. The applicant stated that he had converted from the Methodist church to Christianity, which had caused disgrace to his family. He feared physical assault from his immediate and extended family, loss of access to land, and being stripped of chiefly titles. He also claimed that there were no effective protection measures available in Samoa for such family disputes.

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) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) on complementary protection grounds. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Samoa. The court also considered the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm" as provided in the Act, including circumstances where a person would not be taken to have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's claims regarding his religious conversion and the alleged threats from his family. It noted that the applicant had been living in Australia and had not left Samoa fearing harm. The court also considered the applicant's statement that his parents were deceased and his siblings were in Australia and New Zealand, and that he had a child living in Samoa. The court's reasoning focused on whether the applicant's fear of persecution or significant harm was well-founded and whether effective protection measures were available. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

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