1906922 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for protection visas by a mother and her children. The applicants sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse their protection visa applications. The delegate had considered the general country situation in Fiji and found that the applicant's fear of persecution was not well-founded, nor was there a real risk of significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection. The applicants subsequently provided new claims to the Tribunal, including a statutory declaration detailing experiences of family violence from the applicant's ex-husband in Australia and a fear of harm if returned to Fiji, where she believed her ex-husband could easily locate her and the police would not offer protection.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which relates to being a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection where there is a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also considered the evidence presented, including an interim intervention order, a divorce order, and correspondence from South Australian and Victorian Police regarding freedom of information requests related to alleged family violence incidents.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had experienced family violence from her ex-husband and that police records likely existed concerning these incidents. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji in connection with future elections, nor that there was a real risk of significant harm in Fiji related to such events, based on the country information and the applicant's evidence. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant's circumstances were sympathetic, she had not made a partner visa application, and it remained open for her to request the Minister for Immigration to intervene under section 417 of the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas, finding that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal also found no evidence that the applicants met the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as members of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.