1616559 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Fiji. The applicant claimed to have been assaulted by members of the Fijian military in 2006 and 2007 due to his opposition to the military and his support for the SDL political party and the SODELPHA political party. He alleged that military personnel, who were also extended relatives, informed on him, leading to his assaults. The applicant stated he could not seek help due to the danger and that his family nursed him. He travelled to Australia in 2015, returned to Fiji, but continued to face abuse and threats, prompting his permanent departure. The applicant expressed fear of returning to Fiji, distrust of its military, police, and judiciary, and asserted an inability to relocate within Fiji to avoid harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or, failing that, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal to Fiji would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the criteria for refugee status and complementary protection, considering the definitions of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face such a risk, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act. This involved evaluating the credibility of the applicant's evidence, the nature of the alleged persecution, and the availability of effective protection measures in Fiji.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of political opinion and imputed political opinion, noting the vague details of his political involvement and limited knowledge of Fijian politics. It also took into account the presence of extended family members in the military who lived in his village and allegedly informed on him. The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 56, incorporating policy guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act, which relates to a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.