2402653 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vanuatu, as required for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims of family violence and his fear of harm upon return.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically the "refugee criterion" under s 36(2)(a) and the "complementary protection criterion" under s 36(2)(aa). This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in s 5J of the Act, or if there were substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's own evidence that he did not believe he would face harm if he returned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of family violence were not true and that he had not been harmed or mistreated by his family members. Crucially, the applicant provided clear evidence that he did not believe he would face harm if he returned to Vanuatu. Applying the principles that an applicant must establish their claims and that the Tribunal is not required to accept allegations uncritically, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

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