1906127 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Fiji. The applicant claimed she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion and political opinion, and alternatively, that she faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established these claims, considering the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and applicable guidelines.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Act, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, she would suffer significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal also had to consider the delegate's previous decision, which had found that the applicant did not face persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's history in Fiji, including her employment with the Methodist Church and her experiences during various military coups. She claimed that the Fijian government was anti-Methodist, had arrested church officials, and that she feared restrictions on her freedom of worship and membership in a church group, as well as a general deprivation of basic human rights. The applicant also asserted that her religion was intertwined with an anti-government political opinion. The Tribunal noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm imposed the same standard as the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that while the applicant had experienced political upheavals and felt affected by government policies, these factors did not amount to persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the Methodist Church was not persecuted in Fiji and that there was no indication the applicant would be persecuted on return. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not face a real risk of significant harm.