1903774 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Fijian national against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The applicant claimed to fear persecution upon return to Fiji due to his past ill-treatment by a senior military officer and his opposition to the current government, which he alleged is controlled by a former military officer with intelligence personnel in key positions. He asserted a lack of guarantee of protection from the authorities.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined by section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Fiji. The court also considered the applicant's failure to attend the Tribunal hearing and the implications of his prior returns to Fiji before lodging protection visa applications.

The court reasoned that a mere claim of fear is insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution; the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met, as per the principles in *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559. The applicant's failure to attend the hearing, where he could have provided further details, was noted. The Tribunal found that the information provided was not sufficient to establish a real chance of serious harm, particularly given the applicant had returned to Fiji multiple times before applying for protection. The court also found no substantial grounds to believe the applicant would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection criterion, rejecting his claims of mistreatment and torture.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).