2411774 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Vanuatuan citizen against the decision of the Department not to grant them a protection visa. The applicant claimed they feared persecution in Vanuatu due to their Protestant faith. They alleged that the Vanuatuan government orchestrated the removal of a cross from their church, and that upon protesting this action, they were beaten and detained by security guards and police. The applicant submitted their protection visa application without providing supporting documentation or explaining the delay in lodging the application between September 2021 and November 2023.

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, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns the risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and determine if they had provided sufficient evidence to establish their claims of persecution or significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal emphasised that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish their claim, and that a decision-maker is not obliged to make the applicant's case for them. Despite the applicant's claims of being beaten and detained, the Tribunal noted the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the application. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.