1502343 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection by a citizen of Fiji, who is of Indo-Fijian ethnicity and Hindu religion. The applicant first arrived in Australia in April 2013 and departed in June 2013. He re-entered Australia in October 2014 and subsequently lodged his application for a protection visa. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of fear of harm if returned to Fiji, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant departmental guidelines and country information.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji, and whether he had provided sufficient particulars and evidence to substantiate his claims. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's experiences of discrimination at work due to his ethnicity and religion, as alleged in his written statement and interview, constituted grounds for protection under the Act. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's nationality and whether he was excluded from protection under subsection 36(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *MIEA v Guo*, *Nagalingam v MILGEA*, and *Prasad v MIEA*, which clarify that the onus is on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it. The Tribunal is not obligated to identify or establish the applicant's case for them. The Tribunal found that while the applicant was a national of Fiji and not excluded from protection, his claims of workplace discrimination, including threats of violence and verbal abuse, were not sufficiently particularised or evidenced to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had left his first employment a year before departing Fiji and that his claims regarding his subsequent employment were based on the conduct of a single supervisor.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa.