1615866 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to a citizen of Fiji. The applicant claimed she could not return to Fiji due to her involvement with Oni Kirwin and the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association (PISAI), which opposed the current government. She alleged that involvement with this group was considered sedition and that the Fijian government was militarised, leading to police brutality and deaths in custody. The applicant had entered Australia as a visitor and had returned to Fiji on two occasions since her initial arrival in October 2014, re-entering Australia each time.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether she faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and policy guidelines, including the definition of significant harm and the circumstances under which a person might not face such a risk.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's history of travel, noting that she had left and returned to Fiji on multiple occasions since first arriving in Australia. It applied the principles outlined in section 5J of the Migration Act 1958 regarding a well-founded fear of persecution, including the requirement that any fear must be for one of the prescribed reasons and that the risk must be real and relate to all areas of the receiving country. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act.

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