1606586 (Refugee)

The applicant, a former member of the British Army from Fiji, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed that his service in the British Army meant his life was at risk if he returned to Fiji, citing an incident where a friend was beaten by the Fijian Army for being a member of the British Army, and reports of ex-British Army soldiers training rebels. He also claimed he could not relocate within Fiji and had not experienced harm in Fiji, but had medical conditions that were resolved in Australia. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the refugee criterion or was entitled to complementary protection.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if not, whether he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji, thereby entitling him to complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the criteria set out in the Migration Act 1958, including the definition of significant harm and the availability of effective protection measures in Fiji.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's past service and the incident involving his friend, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant himself had experienced harm or had a real chance of being persecuted upon return to Fiji. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's medical condition, noting it had been resolved while he was in Australia, and that he had adequate access to medical care. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant could reasonably relocate within Fiji and that the risk, if any, was faced by the population generally, not personally by the applicant. The Tribunal also noted the delay in the applicant's application and the desire for family reunification as factors, but concluded these did not meet the threshold for protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal also determined that it was not appropriate to make a referral to the Minister for intervention, suggesting the applicant could make a direct request to the Minister, particularly if further medical treatment was a consideration.