2402654 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear imprisonment in Vanuatu due to disengaging from the PALM scheme. The delegate was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations under the refugee criterion (s 36(2)(a)) or the complementary protection criterion (s 36(2)(aa)). This involved assessing 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, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vanuatu, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Vanuatu and that Vanuatu was the relevant receiving country. The applicant gave evidence via video link and was unrepresented. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had paid someone to lodge his protection visa application and did not have a copy of it, nor did he maintain the claims made within it. The applicant was given an opportunity to provide further evidence regarding his claims of facing imprisonment in Vanuatu due to disengaging from the PALM scheme, but no further evidence was submitted. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vanuatu.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). There was no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a family member of someone who met the protection criteria.