1904776 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to have participated in a military mutiny in 2000, for which he was court-martialled, imprisoned, and subsequently faced monitoring and stigma upon his release. He asserted that he could not seek protection from Fijian authorities due to their alleged compromise and that relocation within Fiji would be ineffective. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the application, finding that the applicant had not been involved in the 2000 coup and mutiny, had not suffered harm since then, and was not of a profile likely to attract the attention of the Fijian government. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or significant harm upon return to Fiji.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether Australia owed him protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether he held a well-founded fear of persecution due to his alleged role in the mutiny, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence presented and relevant country information. It noted that the applicant had served his prison sentence and had not experienced harm since approximately 2014 or 2015, despite ongoing stigma. The Tribunal also took into account recent country information indicating a change of government in Fiji and the pardoning of mutiny participants, including leaders. The Tribunal found that while some stigma might persist, the applicant had successfully worked in related sectors both in Fiji and overseas, and his children had continued their education, suggesting a degree of integration and absence of ongoing persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.