2403258 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming economic hardship and financial difficulties in Timor-Leste, including the inability to adequately support his unwell father due to a lack of essential medications. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned whether these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether they engaged complementary protection criteria.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or if he would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. This involved assessing whether the claimed economic and financial hardship constituted persecution for a Convention reason or amounted to significant harm attributable to an actor, as required for complementary protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims of economic hardship and financial difficulties in Timor-Leste, while genuine in his wish to support his family, did not meet the threshold for persecution under the refugee criteria. It found that these issues arose from general economic conditions in Timor-Leste and were not linked to any of the protected grounds specified in the Act. Furthermore, regarding complementary protection, the Tribunal noted that the claimed harm needed to be attributable to an actor, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal applied the principles from *GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs*, emphasizing that significant harm under the protection visa provisions concerns acts or omissions by another person.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for either refugee or complementary protection.