2404136 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Samoan national seeking a protection visa. The applicant's primary stated reason for seeking protection in Australia was to earn money to support his family in Samoa, asserting he had not experienced harm and did not fear harm upon return, believing Samoan authorities could protect him. He also claimed Samoa was a safe country and he did not need to relocate within Samoa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, whether Australia had protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Samoa. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of his oral evidence, the limited information in his visa application, and available country information regarding Samoa's economic situation and employment prospects.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial claims focused on economic opportunities in Australia to assist his family, rather than a well-founded fear of persecution. His oral evidence was described as hesitant, vague, and inconsistent, particularly regarding his marital status and family details, leading the Tribunal to draw an unfavourable inference from his lack of a reasonable explanation for these discrepancies and the late introduction of a new claim involving a dispute with a relative and alleged harassment of his wife. The Tribunal considered economic information indicating growth in Samoa and noted the applicant's transferable skills and his wife's full-time employment, concluding that any economic hardship in Samoa would not be so significant as to threaten his capacity to subsist or constitute significant harm as defined by the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Samoa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.