1902538 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for review by a Fijian national who had been refused a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm from his former wife's family and also raised concerns about political instability, land rights, and the suppression of Indigenous rights in Fiji, as well as his mental health. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether there was a real risk of significant harm if he were removed to Fiji under the complementary protection provisions in section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims against available country information. Regarding the fear of harm from his former wife's family, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding threats to be vague and not substantiated by specific details or evidence of recent threats. Concerning land rights, the Tribunal noted that while traditional land rights are constitutionally protected in Fiji and leases are facilitated through a government-coordinated system, land cannot be sold, and any leasing requires the agreement of 60% of landowners. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of his family's land being forcibly taken or leased against their will.

On the issue of Indigenous rights, the Tribunal found the country information did not support the applicant's assertion of suppression, noting that Indigenous Fijians are the majority group and benefit from protections. The Tribunal also noted the revival of the Great Council of Chiefs. The applicant's claims about mental health were accepted to the extent that his stress and mood might deteriorate upon return to Fiji, but the Tribunal was not satisfied that this deterioration would be the result of systematic and discriminatory conduct for a protected reason, nor that it would constitute "significant harm" as defined by the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding he did not meet the criteria under either the refugee or complementary protection grounds.