1913925 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a protection visa application made by Fijian nationals. The first applicant claimed to fear harm from the Fijian government, military, and police due to his political affiliation with the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), which opposed the ruling regime. He alleged he had expressed anti-government opinions in his workplaces, was associated with a coup plotter, and had been interrogated, beaten, and threatened by police, resulting in his name being placed on a watch list. The other applicants were family members of the first applicant. The court was required to determine whether the first applicant had established a real chance of suffering significant harm if returned to Fiji, and consequently, whether the other applicants, as members of his family unit, were entitled to protection visas.

The court considered the credibility of the first applicant's claims, noting inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence. Specifically, the claim of late participation in a coup and the extent of his association with a coup plotter were questioned. The court found that the applicant's evidence regarding his political activities in Fiji was vague and inconsistent, and he had not provided any supporting documentation. Furthermore, his ability to obtain passports and depart and return from Fiji without issue, and the fact that he was warned but not suspended or dismissed from his employment for his workplace opinions, weighed against his claims of a real risk of harm. The court also took into account country information indicating changes in government and anti-corruption measures in Fiji.

The court affirmed the decision under review. It found that the cumulative effect of the inconsistencies and omissions in the first applicant's evidence, particularly concerning his political activities and alleged persecution, undermined his credibility. The court concluded that the first applicant had not demonstrated a real chance of suffering significant harm if returned to Fiji, and therefore, the claims for protection by the other applicants, who were members of his family unit, also failed.