2401624 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed she would face persecution if returned to Samoa, primarily due to economic conditions and the inability to support herself and her family. The delegate had previously refused the visa, finding the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as stipulated in section 5J(1)(a). The Tribunal also had to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims related primarily to economic circumstances, which did not fall within the specified grounds for persecution under section 5J(1)(a). Despite opportunities to provide further evidence, the applicant had not done so. The Tribunal gave greater weight to credible country information regarding Samoa's capacity to protect its citizens than to the applicant's uncorroborated claims. The Tribunal emphasised that it is the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish her claims, and the Tribunal is not obligated to make the applicant's case for her.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons specified in the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a refugee and that Australia did not have protection obligations towards her. The decision under review was affirmed.