1932714 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa, initially claiming fear of harm due to the political situation in Fiji. The dispute concerned whether she met the criteria for a protection visa, either on refugee grounds or under the complementary protection provisions. The case was heard by Melissa McAdam.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji. Specifically, the court had to consider if her claims of fear related to political opinion, indigenous rights, or freedom of expression were substantiated, and whether these fears were still relevant given changes in Fiji's government. Additionally, the court needed to assess claims of domestic violence and the potential for harm arising from her husband's actions and circumstances.

The court found that the applicant no longer feared harm based on the political situation or government in Fiji, as she stated her initial application was written by a third party and her current fears related to domestic violence and lack of housing. The court acknowledged the applicant's claims of psychological and mental stress in Fiji, attributing them to government policies, lack of freedom of expression, and discrimination against indigenous people. However, the court also noted that traditional dispute resolution mechanisms, such as 'Bulubulu', are embedded in Fijian culture and can be used to address issues like gender-based violence, suggesting that not all harm would necessarily lead to a failure of protection by the state. The court considered country information regarding traditional justice and the role of community leaders and the church in maintaining social order. The court also noted the applicant's husband's medical condition and mobility issues, and that her son's protection visa application had been refused.

The decision under review was remitted.