1816941 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant, an indigenous businessman from Fiji, claimed he had been harassed and threatened by police, victimised by the allocation of government tenders, and discriminated against by the current regime. He asserted that if returned to Fiji, he would suffer physical, mental, and economic harm.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji under section 36(2)(aa). The court was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented in support of his claims, considering relevant guidelines and country information.

The court found that the applicant's claims lacked credibility and appeared to have been fabricated to secure a protection visa. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's evidence, including his account of being mistreated by military and police in 2014 and 2016, but found it inconsistent and unconvincing. The court noted that the applicant had not reported these incidents to any authorities, stating he was told not to by the police and army, which raised further credibility concerns. Given these findings, the court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of the protection visa was upheld. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa, and there was no suggestion that he qualified under the complementary protection criterion or as a family member of someone who did.