1920844 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on economic hardship in Fiji, including the inability to secure worthwhile employment, the experience of low wages amounting to "slave labour," and the belief that returning to Fiji as a failed asylum seeker would result in the denial of any pension and further employment opportunities. The applicant also claimed to have suffered psychological harm due to depression stemming from a perceived lack of future for himself and his children in Fiji, and asserted that relocation within Fiji would not alleviate these circumstances.

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, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims individually and cumulatively, taking into account relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the DFAT Country Information Report for Fiji, which described Fiji as an upper-middle income country with a significant informal sector. The report noted the minimum wage was FJD2.68 per hour, which did not provide a decent standard of living, and that enforcement of labour laws was challenging. It also detailed the pension system, primarily covering formal sector workers, and indicated that various welfare schemes provided modest monthly payments. Regarding the political and security situation, the report stated Fiji was generally stable and secure, with low crime rates and a low risk of terrorism, and that elections were orderly. The report also indicated that the Constitution guarantees freedoms, subject to limitations, and that politics were no longer characterised by past unrest. Crucially, the DFAT report stated that it was not aware of any official or societal discrimination against failed asylum seekers, and that emigration and return to Fiji were common, with many Fijians having family links to Australia, making a return unlikely to attract attention from authorities.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the five prescribed reasons. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Fiji. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been invited to attend a review hearing to provide oral evidence, but had not done so.