1503377 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of a Fijian national seeking protection in Australia. The applicant, of Indo-Fijian ethnicity and Christian religion, had a history of visitor visas to Australia and lodged a protection visa application after previous visa extensions were refused. The Tribunal had before it the Department's file, including the applicant's passport and the delegate's decision, as well as relevant country information.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race or religion, or a real chance of suffering significant harm, should he be returned to Fiji. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims against the criteria for protection visas, considering both the applicant's personal circumstances and the country information pertaining to Fiji. The Tribunal was also required to consider Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates taking account of relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's stated reasons for leaving Fiji and his fears upon return. Initially, the applicant cited difficulties with the military government and unemployment as his primary concerns, not having experienced direct harm. However, subsequent submissions from his migration representative introduced claims of persecution based on his Indo-Fijian race and conversion from Hinduism to Christianity. These submissions detailed historical ethnic tensions, alleged systemic discrimination, verbal and physical abuse, and threats to his well-being. The applicant's representative argued that relocation was not a viable option due to institutionalised discrimination and that protective institutions in Fiji, being predominantly indigenous Fijian, would not offer adequate protection. The Tribunal noted the applicant's claim that police had demanded Indian residents abandon their properties, framing this as part of systemic discrimination. The representative also referred to the case of *Chand v Immigration and Naturalisation Service, USA* as analogous.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race or religion. It noted that the applicant had not experienced harm in Fiji and that his initial stated concerns were economic. While acknowledging the country information regarding ethnic tensions in Fiji, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims of systemic discrimination and fear of harm were not sufficiently substantiated to meet the threshold for protection. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated a real chance of suffering significant harm.