1514543 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Fijian national against the decision of the Department not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Fiji due to ongoing persecution, harassment, and bullying related to his sexual orientation, alleging that he had experienced physical assaults and abuse from various individuals, including military and police personnel. He further contended that Fijian society, particularly its predominantly Christian population, did not condone homosexuality and that authorities were unwilling or unable to protect him, making relocation within Fiji unviable.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if not, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Fiji would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and policy guidelines, including those pertaining to complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including statutory declarations and letters from third parties, alongside documentary evidence from the Department. It noted that the applicant's claims of persecution were vague and inconsistent, and that the provided country information did not support the assertion that homosexual individuals generally faced persecution or that authorities were incapable of providing protection. The Tribunal applied the principles of section 36(2)(aa) of the Act concerning complementary protection, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. However, due to the lack of credible and consistent evidence supporting the applicant's claims of persecution and the absence of evidence suggesting a real risk of significant harm, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.