1614785 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Fiji. The applicant, who is of Indian ethnicity, claimed to have been targeted by military officers in Fiji due to his role as the founder of a charitable organisation. He alleged that he received threats and was physically assaulted by military personnel who demanded money and the surrender of his position. The applicant expressed fear of returning to Fiji, believing he would face harm from the military and that the authorities would not protect him. The Tribunal was required to determine the applicant's claims for protection.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning his claims of persecution in Fiji. This involved assessing the credibility of his account of harassment and threats by military officers, and whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race or political opinion. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether Fiji was the applicant's "receiving country" for the purposes of the Act and whether he was excluded from protection under subsection 36(3).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's Fijian passport and found him to be a national of Fiji, thus establishing Fiji as his receiving country and not excluding him from protection under subsection 36(3). In assessing the applicant's credibility, the Tribunal referred to the principles outlined in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan* (1996) 40 ALD 445, emphasizing a reasonable approach to credibility findings. The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided a statement detailing his wife's alleged actions in creating a situation to gain mileage for her own protection claim, including obtaining an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order against him, which he claimed was done with malicious intent. The Tribunal also considered social media communications, but found them to have no apparent relevance to the applicant's protection claims. The decision does not specify the final orders made by the Tribunal.