1934026 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning protection visa applications made by two applicants, citizens of Fiji. The dispute centred on whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion, or a real chance of significant harm if returned to Fiji.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims that they feared harm from the Fijian military and police due to the first applicant's opposition to the government's changes to his occupation's contract system. The applicants also claimed membership of an opposition political party. However, the Tribunal noted a lack of specific evidence regarding any activities or warnings received by the first applicant, and no evidence of actual harm. Similarly, information provided by a member of parliament was deemed unreliable, and no other evidence supported the claim of membership or activity within the political party, leading the Tribunal to view the first applicant as a supporter rather than a member. The Tribunal also considered country information and found that a late claim by the second applicant based on domestic violence was withdrawn and lacked a proper basis.

Applying section 5AAA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), the Tribunal emphasised that the onus was on the applicants to specify and provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims, with no obligation on the Tribunal to assist in this regard. The Tribunal found that the applicants' identity as Fijian citizens was not in dispute and that there was no evidence they had a right to reside elsewhere. Consequently, Fiji was accepted as the country of reference. Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claims of political opinion and fear of harm, and the withdrawal of the domestic violence claim, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not established that Australia owed them protection obligations. An adverse inference was drawn regarding the applicants' credibility.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.