1722099 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of Fiji, sought protection visas, claiming they opposed the Fijian government and had been subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the military. Their claims were rejected by the delegate, and they sought review of that decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the definition of a refugee or were entitled to complementary protection, and whether they constituted a family unit.

The Tribunal's primary focus was on the credibility of the applicants' claims. It noted that the onus rests on the applicant to establish their claims with sufficient evidence, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or accept claims uncritically. The Tribunal identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicants' evidence, particularly concerning a claim of robbery and assault made for the first time at the hearing, which had not been included in their initial application forms or statements. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating that while past reports detailed human rights abuses under military rule, more recent reports suggested an improving human rights situation in Fiji following the restoration of democracy in 2014, with no reports of political prisoners or arbitrary killings since the 2014 election.

Given the conflicting and inconsistent evidence provided by the applicants, particularly regarding the alleged abuse and robbery, and in light of the country information suggesting a generally improving human rights situation in Fiji, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the onus of establishing their claims. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visas.