1701518 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Fiji, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in February 2016 and applied for a protection visa in November 2016. The delegate refused the visa in January 2017, finding the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought review by the Tribunal, which invited him to a hearing in September 2022. The applicant failed to complete the response form or attend the hearing, leading the Tribunal to make a decision without further steps. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. This required determining whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or a real risk of significant harm, such that Australia had protection obligations under the *Migration Act*. The court also considered whether the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions relating to the applicant's failure to participate in the review process.

The court noted that the applicant claimed to have been involved with SODELPA Youth, opposing the military rule in Fiji and advocating for landowner rights. He expressed fear of arrest or torture upon return, stating the authorities were run by the military and protected the government rather than the people. However, the applicant did not claim to have previously experienced harm in Fiji and had not sought to relocate within Fiji for safety. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and the relevant legislative criteria, including the definition of a refugee and the concept of a well-founded fear of persecution. The court found that the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal was open to it on the evidence and that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law, including its power to make a decision without further steps due to the applicant's non-compliance.

The application for review was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of the protection visa was upheld.