1616589 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa based on claims of imputed political opinion and fear of harm from the Fijian Government. The applicant alleged that his support for breakaway Christian states and association with certain individuals, including Ms. Oni Kirwin, had placed him under the surveillance of the Fijian Government, with warnings of severe punishment for sedition. He feared torture, rape, and brutality if returned to Fiji, citing military and police brutality and an increase in deaths in custody. The applicant provided a Fiji Native Government in Exile card and receipts for payments to the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association as evidence of his involvement. The decision under review affirmed the refusal to grant the protection visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding his activities, his association with specific groups and individuals, and the potential for harm from the Fijian Government. The court also considered the provisions relating to complementary protection, which allows for the grant of a visa if there are substantial grounds for believing that a non-citizen faces a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* and Ministerial Direction No. 56. It noted that the applicant's fear of harm was based on his involvement with the Fiji Native Government in Exile and the Pacific Indigenous Samaritan Association, and his alleged participation in a protest where he criticised the Fijian Prime Minister. However, the court found that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act. The decision does not elaborate on the specific reasons for this failure, but it implies that the evidence presented did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

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