1821389 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Fiji, sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether she would face persecution or significant harm if returned to Fiji, based on her claims of career frustration, political instability, and concerns for her mental health and indigenous Fijian rights. The matter was heard by Sydelle Muling.

The court was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, for the purposes of s 36(2)(a); and second, if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Fiji, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's nationality and her stated purpose for coming to Australia, which was to advance her career and provide a better future for her children. However, the Tribunal found no information to suggest that her past failures to secure career promotions in Fiji were due to reasons outlined in s 5J(1)(a), nor did it accept that missing such opportunities constituted significant harm. The applicant's assertion that the government's policies and the general political climate in Fiji caused her psychological distress and fear of harm upon return was not substantiated to the required legal standard. The Tribunal noted that the applicant herself stated that things had settled since the government changed and that she did not believe she would be harmed if she returned to Fiji.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2) of the Act.