Refugee Application Number: 2318773 (Refugee)

This is an appeal regarding an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Tonga. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa The applicant, applied for a protection visa in Australia, citing fears related to his political opinion of the government, freedom of speech, economic hardship, and climate change/rising sea levels. During the hearing, the applicant indicated his primary motivation for seeking the visa was to work in Australia and financially support his family in Tonga. He denied ever expressing his political opinions in Tonga. The Tribunal considered country information about Tonga, which indicated that people can generally express their political views within the law and that safeguards against arbitrary arrest exist. The applicant had previously lived in Tonga, worked on a plantation owned by his father-in-law, and returned to Tonga for approximately four years before coming back to Australia. The applicant expressed concerns about economic struggles in Tonga and the potential need to resort to drug dealing, given the increasing drug trade. The Tribunal specifically addressed the applicant's claims regarding climate change and rising sea levels. It found that the applicant did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention-related reason based on these claims. The Tribunal reasoned that: The applicant could not identify who would persecute him due to climate change. Additionally, the harm claimed was not directed at the applicant or a specific group he belongs to for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required under the definition of a refugee in the Migration Act 1958. The court noted that the impacts of climate change affect the entire population of Tonga. Additionally, there was no evidence that the applicant had experienced targeted serious harm or significant harm in Tonga due to climate change, or that he would face such a risk upon return that would engage Australia's protection obligations. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa as a refugee (s 36(2)(a)) or under the complementary protection criterion (s 36(2)(aa)). Therefore, the decision to refuse the protection visa was affirmed.