1709023 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Fiji of Indian descent, sought a protection visa in Australia. The applicant's claims for protection stemmed from an extra-marital affair which led to physical and verbal abuse by the partner's husband, a military officer. The applicant also asserted that his Indian ethnicity had resulted in him being subjected to derogatory remarks and social exclusion. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering whether he was a refugee or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Fiji, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," and relevant guidelines. The applicant's fear of persecution was based on his extra-marital affair and his ethnic background. The Tribunal noted that the alleged abuse by the partner's husband occurred in 2013, and the applicant had not seen him since that time. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Fiji, nor that he was a refugee within the meaning of the Act. The applicant's claims regarding his ethnicity did not, in the Tribunal's assessment, amount to a well-founded fear of persecution.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act as a refugee, nor did he satisfy the criterion under s.36(2)(aa) for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s.36(2)(b) or (c) as a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.