1701268 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have been tortured and harassed in Fiji due to financial difficulties arising from a farm lease. She alleged that her former partner absconded, leaving her solely responsible for a significant debt to the landlord, and that she feared mistreatment and inability to relocate if returned to Fiji. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 or on complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa).

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the statutory definitions of a refugee and significant harm. The applicant's initial claims of torture and harassment were put to her at the Tribunal hearing, where she was invited to comment on whether these claims had a nexus with the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The applicant's evidence at the Tribunal indicated that her children were able to maintain the farm lease through funds sent from Australia and the proceeds of produce, and that her primary concern upon return would be the inability to pay the rent, leading to the cancellation of the lease. The court found that the applicant's claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the court concluded that the applicant did not face a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, as her stated difficulties related to financial hardship and the inability to pay rent, rather than persecution for a Convention reason.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criterion of being a refugee, nor did she satisfy the complementary protection criterion. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.