1708612 (Refugee)

The applicant, an indigenous Fijian, sought a protection visa, claiming that upon return to Fiji, he would face harm due to restrictions on subsistence fishing, which was his sole means of livelihood. The dispute centred on whether these circumstances constituted a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The 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 alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. This required an assessment of the applicant's claims regarding alleged government restrictions on traditional fishing grounds, the arrest of other fishermen, and the general treatment of indigenous Fijians.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and relevant guidelines. It found that the applicant's assertions about a "Gulli-Gulli Bill" and the arrest of other fishermen were vague and unsubstantiated. No evidence was provided regarding the specific laws, the outcomes of any court cases involving other fishermen, or the availability of fishing licences or reserved traditional fishing areas. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would face a real risk of significant harm, as defined by the Act, and that general risks faced by the population were not sufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.