1701903 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indo-Fijian, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for protection under either refugee or complementary protection provisions. The applicant did not provide further evidence to the Tribunal and failed to attend his scheduled hearing.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Fiji, and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Fiji, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of economic hardship and unemployment in Fiji, exacerbated by Cyclone Winston in 2016, in light of the relevant legislative definitions and guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims did not relate to a Convention reason such as race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The applicant's evidence was deemed insufficiently detailed to establish a real chance of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims of economic hardship and unemployment did not amount to significant harm as defined by the Act, particularly as they did not appear to be the result of an intentional act directed specifically at the applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.