1600187 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution based on an actual or imputed political opinion, alleging that their social media posts critical of the Fijian government and their association with an anti-government group placed them at risk. The applicant also pointed to their naming in a report and an interaction with a military officer as further grounds for their fear. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of an actual or imputed political opinion, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant's alleged political opinions were genuine, whether they had a real chance of being persecuted by the Fijian authorities or others acting with the state's acquiescence, and whether such persecution would be on account of their political opinion. The Court also had to consider the evidentiary weight of the applicant's social media activity, their alleged associations, the report naming them, and the interaction with the military officer.

Justice Foster applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs*, focusing on the objective assessment of the applicant's claims and the likelihood of persecution. Her Honour found that the applicant's social media posts, while critical, did not demonstrate a genuine political opinion that would attract persecution. Furthermore, the evidence of association with an anti-government group was not sufficiently substantiated to establish a real chance of persecution. The naming in the report and the interaction with the military officer were also assessed and found not to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision under review.