2403619 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who was from Vanuatu, claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to debts incurred by a friend in his name, which led to threats, property damage, and physical assault by a loan shark. The applicant also claimed a fear of ongoing threats if returned to Vanuatu. The delegate had refused the visa, finding the applicant's claims did not relate to the prescribed reasons for protection under the Act and that state protection was available in Vanuatu.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons specified in section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Vanuatu. Alternatively, the court had to consider if 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 as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered documentary evidence provided by the applicant and the Department. The applicant did not attend the scheduled review hearing, despite invitations and reminders. While the applicant initially indicated an inability to attend in person due to being in another city, he agreed to proceed via telephone or video conference. However, subsequent attempts by the Tribunal to connect via telephone and Microsoft Teams were unsuccessful, with the applicant terminating the calls or not answering. The Tribunal noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm is equivalent to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

As the applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide oral evidence, and given the Tribunal's inability to make a favourable decision based solely on the documentary material, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.