1932312 (Refugee)

The applicant, a native Fijian and former teacher, sought review of a decision by the Tribunal to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The applicant had lived and worked in Fiji for 24 years before coming to Australia, supporting his wife and children. He experienced financial hardship due to low wages, disruptive postings to rural schools, and a demotion stemming from workplace rivalries. In 2018, his permanent teaching position was converted to a contract, leading to fear and uncertainty about job security. He subsequently resigned from his contract in Fiji and came to Australia, seeking more secure and better-paid employment to support his family.

The legal issues before the court concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if he faced substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, he would suffer significant harm. The court also considered whether the applicant qualified as a member of a particular social group, such as teachers facing professional restrictions and contract employment in Fiji.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While the applicant detailed significant challenges and financial hardship as a teacher in Fiji, including the shift to contract employment and associated job insecurity, these circumstances were found to be faced by teachers generally and did not amount to persecution for one of the specified reasons. The court noted that while the applicant experienced difficulties, there was no evidence of systematic and discriminatory conduct or serious harm directed at him personally. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to suggest that the applicant was a member of a particular social group that would entitle him to protection, nor that he would suffer significant harm upon return to Fiji. The applicant's primary concern appeared to be financial hardship and the inability to support his family at the same level as he could in Australia, which did not meet the threshold for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.