1605469 (Refugee)

The applicants, a husband and wife, sought protection visas. Their dispute with the Department of Immigration concerned whether they met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards them. The matter was heard by James Silva, a member of the Tribunal.

The court was required to determine if the applicants qualified as refugees or were otherwise entitled to complementary protection. This involved assessing whether the husband had a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji due to his past criminal history, as he now claimed, or for reasons of religion, as he had originally asserted. The court also had to consider the wife's protection claims, which mirrored her husband's, and whether their status as asylum seekers and the affordability of necessary medication in Fiji constituted grounds for complementary protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The court noted that the applicants had withdrawn their original claims of fearing harm due to religion. While the husband now claimed fear of harassment and assault by the Fiji military and police due to his past criminal history, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this fear was well-founded or that he would face persecution or significant harm upon return to Fiji. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' concerns about the cost of medication and their status as asylum seekers but concluded these did not establish a basis for protection obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.