1834000 (Refugee)

The applicant, an indigenous Fijian, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse her application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed she feared persecution in Fiji due to her race, her opposition to the current Fijian government, and her poor mental health, which she asserted would be exacerbated by her return. The delegate had found that there was not a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm for these reasons.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm if returned to Fiji, considering her claims relating to her indigenous status, her political opinions, and her mental health. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the conditions in Fiji posed a genuine threat to her safety and well-being, and whether any perceived threats were linked to the grounds for protection under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's submissions, which detailed her experiences of suppressed rights as an indigenous person, her fear of the government, and her inability to express her opinions freely in Fiji. She also highlighted her mental health struggles, attributing them to the political climate and the perceived lack of safety and trust within the community. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had never been a public political figure and that her family's political affiliations, specifically with SODELPA, were now part of the governing coalition. The Tribunal applied the principles of refugee law, including the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that effective state protection was available to the applicant in Fiji. The Tribunal concluded that, given the current political landscape and the applicant's lack of a prominent political profile, she did not face a real risk of persecution or significant harm upon her return. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.