1500156 (Refugee)

The applicants, a husband, wife, and their son, sought protection visas on complementary protection grounds. Their claim was based on the assertion that they had lived outside Fiji for so long that they would face significant economic and social difficulties upon returning, which would be detrimental to their son's development. The applicants explicitly confirmed that their primary concern was adjustment to life in Fiji and that they did not face a real risk of significant harm.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically concerning complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal from Australia to Fiji, the applicants would suffer significant harm. The applicants' past claims of threats from an individual who had occupied their former home were also relevant to assessing the nature of any perceived risk.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims did not establish a real risk of significant harm as defined by the Migration Act. The applicants acknowledged that they had no legal right to reclaim their former property in Fiji and that their concerns were primarily related to economic adjustment. Their previous claims of threats were no longer considered to be current or credible. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria set out in section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act. This outcome meant they were also unable to satisfy the alternative criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c).