1701070 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a Fijian national and his family. The primary applicant claimed to be a strong supporter of breakaway regions in Fiji and a member of organisations advocating for self-determination, alleging that Fiji was a police state with no rule of law, where he risked imprisonment for sedition. He also asserted that the Fijian race was being targeted and that internal relocation was impossible due to pervasive surveillance. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, which relates to refugee status, or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns the risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider the claims of the family members, who had not made separate claims but were part of the same family unit as the primary applicant.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. It found that the primary applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm, thus failing to meet the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa).

As the primary applicant did not satisfy either the refugee or complementary protection criteria, his family members, who relied on his application, also failed to meet the requirements for a Protection visa. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.