2402656 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vanuatu, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, such that Australia would have protection obligations towards him. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the protection visa, was considered by Member Mia Bailey.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's claims of fear due to natural disasters and a land dispute in Vanuatu constituted a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act. This involved determining whether any feared harm amounted to "serious harm" and involved "systematic and discriminatory conduct," as stipulated in section 5J(4). The Tribunal also had to consider whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Vanuatu, pursuant to section 5LA.

Member Bailey reasoned that the applicant's claims regarding natural disasters, while causing anxiety and leading to the destruction of his previous residence, did not amount to persecution. The evidence presented, including news articles about cyclones, did not demonstrate that the harm feared from natural disasters was systematic and discriminatory conduct. Furthermore, the land dispute, while involving multiple claimants and a court order for removal, lacked sufficient detail and evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant was unable to provide specific dates for court proceedings, the reasons for the claims, or the precise nature of the court order, beyond a social media post. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was in the process of purchasing land on Santo for his family, indicating a potential alternative to the disputed land. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act.

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