1932321 (Refugee)

The applicant, a male citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards him, either under the refugee criterion or complementary protection grounds. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Fiji due to his indigenous Fijian heritage, his advocacy for human rights and traditional values, and his opposition to the current government's policies, which he alleged suppressed indigenous rights and freedom of speech. He also cited mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, exacerbated by his experiences in Fiji.

The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he 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 a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. The court also had to consider whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Fiji and whether it would be reasonable for him to relocate within Fiji to avoid any risk.

The court found that the applicant had not established that he met the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. While acknowledging the applicant's claims regarding his experiences and concerns about the Fijian government, the court concluded that he had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Fiji. The court also noted that the applicant did not claim to be a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

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