2401618 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to a national of Vanuatu. The applicant stated that she had married her husband in 2016 and that he had come to Australia in 2019 on a visa, later stating he held a subclass 866 visa. The applicant claimed she applied for the same visa as her husband because she did not know how to apply for visas herself, and that a friend of her husband’s prepared her application. She indicated she did not know what was in the application, nor had she read it, and was unaware it was for a protection visa until informed by the Tribunal. The applicant stated she and her husband came to Australia to work due to limited job opportunities and high living costs in Vanuatu, and that she wished to remain in Australia to build a house and secure a better future for her children who remained in Vanuatu.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which requires the applicant to be a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm" as set out in the Act, as well as relevant Ministerial Directions and guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a national of Vanuatu and that Vanuatu was the receiving country for the assessment. The applicant stated she and her husband came to Australia for work due to limited job opportunities and high cost of living in Vanuatu, and she wished to remain to build a house and secure a better future for her children. The Tribunal accepted this evidence as credible. However, the applicant did not articulate any fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, nor did she provide evidence to suggest she would suffer significant harm as a consequence of being removed to Vanuatu. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2)(a) of the Act, nor did she satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

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