1905883 (Refugee)

The applicant, an indigenous Fijian woman, sought a protection visa. Her claims for protection were based on allegations of deprivation of freedom of speech, the forced relinquishment of her land, and the resulting psychological stress and depression. She also expressed concerns about the political situation in Fiji, including the influence of China and Muslims, the military's role, and economic instability leading to a lack of jobs. The applicant contended that her health improved while in Australia and would deteriorate if she were returned to Fiji.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether her fear of persecution was well-founded and whether the alleged harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the Act.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions and guidelines, including Ministerial Direction No. 84. It found that the applicant's concerns about finding a job and general economic hardship did not amount to significant harm. The court also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee based on a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for complementary protection, as there was no substantial ground to believe that she would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia.

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