1905331 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Fijian national, sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa. The applicant claimed she had experienced nepotism in Fiji when denied a study scholarship and that her mother’s resignation from government employment due to an unhealthy work environment and job insecurity caused her emotional distress and victimisation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicant would be persecuted upon return to Fiji due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided specific evidence of nepotism regarding the scholarship denial, concluding that it was more likely due to her proposed area of study not meeting the scholarship guidelines. Similarly, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant herself experienced harm or victimisation as a result of her mother's employment issues. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm if returned to Fiji.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not meet the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. The applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).