1606875 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Fiji. The applicant claimed he feared harm from the Fiji military upon return to Fiji, citing accusations by the Fiji Government against Fijians in Australia for drumming up anti-government sentiment. However, at the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant conceded that his claims of fear were not truthful and stated he did not actually fear harm in Fiji, but rather wished to remain in Australia for the betterment of his family and due to poor economic prospects in Fiji.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1)(a) of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and a real chance of persecution in all areas of the receiving country. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's oral evidence at the hearing, where he admitted his claims were not truthful and that he did not fear harm in Fiji, undermined his protection visa application. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had stated he had never spoken out against the government and that the military had never harassed him, apart from one incident during his previous employment. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which indicated that organisations the applicant might be associated with did not have a reported presence in Fiji and that the Fiji authorities were not known to have an adverse interest in persons associated with them, with the exception of one individual. Based on the applicant's own evidence that he did not fear harm and the lack of credible evidence supporting a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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