2403188 (Refugee)

The applicant, a male citizen of Vanuatu, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to fear physical harm and threats from his ex-partner's relatives due to an extra-marital affair, which he alleged brought shame to the family and involved a family inheritance and property dispute. He contended that the police in Vanuatu would not provide protection due to nepotism and familial connections to his ex-partner's relatives. The case was heard by Mia Bailey of the Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were 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, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's claims of threats and harm constituted persecution, if effective protection measures were available in Vanuatu, and if the applicant's fear was a real chance of persecution in all areas of Vanuatu. The Tribunal also considered the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly in light of discrepancies and the timing of his application.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa. The Member found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear of harm from his ex-partner's relatives stemming from an inheritance and property dispute, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this fear was persecution for one of the prescribed reasons under the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that effective protection measures were unavailable in Vanuatu, nor had he established that the alleged harm was systematic and discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's delay in applying for protection and the circumstances surrounding the initial application, which raised credibility concerns.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.