2004434 (Refugee)

The applicants, Fijian citizens, sought protection visas in Australia. The primary applicant claimed he was the sole breadwinner for his family, facing economic hardship in Fiji due to low wages and rising living costs, making it difficult to find secure employment. The second applicant stated she had been given incorrect advice regarding the protection visa application process and had not personally made claims for protection. Both applicants confirmed they had not experienced harm in Fiji.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees or entitled to complementary protection. This involved assessing whether the primary applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji, or if there was a real risk of significant harm to either applicant upon removal from Australia to Fiji. The court also considered the applicants' employment history, qualifications, and living arrangements in Fiji.

The court found that the applicants, both of working age with qualifications and prior employment in Fiji and Australia, would be able to find work and secure housing if they returned to Fiji. It was concluded that their economic circumstances upon return would not threaten their capacity to subsist or amount to serious or significant harm. The second applicant's evidence indicated she had not made personal claims for protection and had applied for the visa based on incorrect advice.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants. Therefore, they did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.