1705253 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia to play sports, sought a protection visa. He claimed to have experienced discrimination in Fiji regarding employment opportunities and stated that authorities could not protect him because he was not accepted for who he was. He also expressed a desire to remain in Australia to support his de facto partner and their unborn child. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person to whom Australia owes complementary protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions, including the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm," as well as Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 5J of the Act. Furthermore, the applicant's own letter indicated an understanding that a protection visa was not the appropriate avenue for his situation, and he preferred to remain in Australia for personal reasons related to his partner and child. The Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, and therefore he did not meet the criteria for complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the requirements of section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).