1929691 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, an indigenous Fijian, claimed he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji due to his termination of employment. He alleged his dismissal was part of a strategic plan by the Fijian government to replace indigenous Fijians with Fijian Indians in senior positions within government-owned companies, and that he would be unable to find alternative employment or receive protection from the authorities if returned.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Fiji, he would suffer significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The court considered documentary evidence, including the applicant's visa application, employment records, and documents relating to the death of his son in Fiji.

The court applied the "real chance" test for assessing a well-founded fear of persecution, which it noted imposed the same standard as the "real risk" test for significant harm under section 36(2A). The Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Despite the applicant's claims of racial discrimination and fear of reprisal, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant would be unable to obtain protection from Fijian state authorities or that he had a profile that would attract adverse attention from those authorities.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant had not met the criteria for being a refugee or for complementary protection. The applicant's claims regarding his termination and the broader political situation in Fiji were not substantiated to the extent required to establish a real risk of persecution or significant harm.