1931599 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa claims of two applicants originating from Fiji. The dispute centred on whether the applicants had established a real risk of significant harm or serious harm if returned to Fiji, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The primary applicant alleged he could not express political opinions or criticise the Fijian government without facing reprisals such as arrest or victimisation by the police, and that this inability to speak out caused him to act aggressively towards his family.

The Tribunal was required to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would suffer significant or serious harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Fiji. This involved assessing whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the primary applicant's claims of persecution based on imputed political opinion and the alleged inability to express views on the Fijian government, as well as the claim that this situation led to aggressive behaviour towards his family and affected his eyesight due to stress.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants bore the responsibility to specify the particulars of their claims and provide sufficient evidence to establish them, and that the Tribunal was not obliged to make their case for them or accept allegations uncritically. While acknowledging Fiji's history of coups, the Tribunal noted that democratic elections had been held since the last coup in 2006 and that the country had a functioning parliamentary system. The Tribunal found that the primary applicant had not provided any tangible or probative evidence to validate his claims of persecution or the resulting harm. The Tribunal specifically rejected the claim that the inability to express political views led to aggressive behaviour towards his family, noting a lack of evidence of such behaviour or that the Fijian government's actions caused it. Similarly, the claim regarding eyesight being affected by stress was deemed vague, weak, and tenuous, lacking supporting evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no real chance of the applicants being subjected to persecution in Fiji for any of the reasons provided in the Act. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not satisfied the criterion that Australia should apply protection obligations to them. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the protection visa applications were refused.