1918814 (Refugee)

The applicant, a male from Fiji, sought a protection visa in Australia after arriving in February 2019. He claimed that his reasons for seeking protection were not fear of harm but rather poverty and a desire for better opportunities for his children, including access to improved housing, healthcare, education, and employment. The applicant provided evidence of his income relative to Fiji's basic needs poverty line, asserting that while he earned more than the poverty line, he faced difficulties affording basic necessities and his child's school excursion. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant would not face persecution on the basis of race or any other Convention reason, nor a real risk of significant harm in Fiji.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Fiji. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or whether he would suffer significant harm, considering the definitions and exclusions outlined in the Act, including the availability of effective protection measures and the reasonableness of relocation.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The applicant's claims centred on economic hardship and a desire for better life opportunities, which did not constitute persecution for a Convention reason as defined by the Act. The court noted that the applicant explicitly stated he did not fear harm in Fiji, only poverty. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the applicant would suffer significant harm, as defined by section 36(2A) of the Act, upon removal to Fiji. The applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.