1932405 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Fiji. The applicant claimed that his termination from employment with a Fijian government agency was due to his union activities, and that upon return to Fiji, he would face victimisation, be denied future employment opportunities due to his union advocacy, and suffer significant harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or if there was a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of removal to Fiji.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions, including s 5J(1) and s 36(2A) of the Act, and applied the 'real risk' test, which is equivalent to the 'real chance' test for well-founded fear. The Tribunal also took into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments. The delegate's decision had previously found that while the applicant may have been dismissed for union activities and potentially denied some employment, there was no indication he was unable to subsist in Fiji for over two years post-dismissal, nor had he been threatened, arrested, detained, or physically mistreated. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would be denied all employment in Fiji or that he met the criteria for a refugee or for complementary protection.

The Tribunal invited the applicant to a review hearing, noting that a favourable decision could not be made on the information then before it. The applicant's representative sought a postponement of the hearing due to the applicant's location and travel difficulties, as well as the representative's recent hospitalisation. The Tribunal was to make a decision on the case, potentially without further notice, if the applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing.