2004711 (Refugee)

2004711 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4520 (18 October 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:                  Application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection XA subclass 866 Visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE:        Unrepresented
CASE NUMBER:  2004711
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:18 October 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.

Statement made on 18 October 2023 at 2:48pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – victim of domestic violence and abuse – reduced employment prospects – prevalence of violence against women – inconsistent police protection – availability of appropriate mental health treatment – stigma of mental illness – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) ALD 346
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Protection visa application

Protection visa application dated 24 June 2019.
Applicant’s accompanying statement of claims.
Other departmental records:
3.1.Decision record relating to the delegate’s refusal decision.
3.2.Case file.
3.3.Internal records relating to the applicant.
Application for review
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to attend a hearing on 13 October 2023 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant provided to the Tribunal:
5.1.Confirmation that the applicant intended to participate in the hearing without the assistance of an interpreter.
5.2.Request that the Tribunal take evidence from two witnesses: her mother and her doctor.
5.3.Applicant’s submission dated 4 September 2023.
The Hearing
The applicant and her mother appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing conducted in person on 13 October 2023. The applicant was unrepresented and elected not to have an interpreter.
The applicant gave evidence, summarised by the Tribunal as follows:
7.1.The applicant is an indigenous Fijian woman born in [year]. She grew up with her parents, two older brothers and younger sister in [City 1] until her parents separated and she went to live with her [father] while she finished her education. Her father, no longer alive, worked for [a company]. Her mother was a housewife and is still alive and living in Australia; she is an Australian citizen. Her eldest brother is retired, her other brother works for [Employer 1], and her sister is a housewife.
7.2.The applicant completed Form 6 and joined [Employer 1], then completed two years’ of [Employer 1]-related tertiary studies at [university] while she was employed. She remained working for [Employer 1] for 25 years until she moved to Australia.
7.3.The applicant was married to her first husband for 10 years. They had 4 children together: two daughters now aged [age[ and [age] and both married; and two sons now aged [age] and [age], the older working at [employer] and the younger at university.
7.4.The first husband also worked for [Employer 1] in a more senior position than the applicant.
7.5.The first husband physically and verbally abused the applicant routinely throughout the marriage. He started taking marijuana. After being bashed by him one night in 2003, she moved out of the home. The first husband got custody of the children because she left the house and they remained with their father. The law granted her access, however for 8 years, the first husband denied her access, and she didn’t see her children for that period. In the meantime, he remarried and had two more children who grew up with his other children.
7.6.When the applicant started seeing her children again, the first husband continued the physical and verbal abuse towards her.
7.7.As the applicant and her first husband both worked for [Employer 1], they saw each other every day. He also verbally abused her at work. Superiors did not try to protect her; they regarded it as a private matter. The applicant requested from her CEO, and was granted, a transfer to a different section to get away from her first husband. This helped her a bit, however she was still required to have contact with him about work issues: taking his calls, and having to report to him.
7.8.Over the 25 years the applicant worked for [Employer 1], she was never promoted, whereas all the people who started at [Employer 1] with her have been promoted to senior positions. She believes her first husband, as her superior, ensured that she would never be promoted.
7.9.The first husband still works for [Employer 1] and lives in [City 1]; the applicant thinks he is a team leader, but has no contact. The applicant’s youngest son continues to live with his father; she also has no contact with him.
7.10.The applicant met her second husband when they were working in the same area at [Worksite 1]. He was a [occupation]. He was a good man who treated her well. The first husband also regularly verbally abused the second husband. In 2016, the children left their father’s house and returned to live with the applicant, complaining about the stepmother mistreating them. The first husband blamed the applicant for taking the children away, and his new wife also became verbally abusive towards her.
7.11.The applicant welcomed her children home. It was however financially very hard for to support and educate them on her wage. The first husband did not provide any support.
7.12.In September 2016, the applicant’s second husband died. She couldn’t accept the loss and became very sick with depression. She went to the hospital 2 to 3 times each month for an overnight stay to be treated.
7.13.The applicant’s depression worsened over her remaining years in Fiji. Her mother visited for 3 weeks while attending a church conference and saw the situation she was in mentally and financially. Her mother encouraged her to come to Australia for a break. She didn’t want to leave because she was worried about the children and their education. She applied for one month’s leave from work; she made sure her first husband wasn’t aware.
7.14.The applicant wasn’t happy with what Bainimarama did to workers. On one occasion she was working [at Worksite 1] with two other [employees]. They were preparing to [perform a routine work task] when they got a directive from [representatives of a government minister to abandon that task]. She believed the government was concealing something, and it went against [the principles of her role and employer]. There was nothing they could do as [Employer 1 staff] to object or they risked their jobs.
7.15.The applicant came to Australia on a 3 month visitor visa, arriving in May 2019 and staying with her mother. Just before she left, she voted in the election and the Bainimarama dictatorship was returned. Although there is a new government in Fiji now, Bainimarama is still out there, he’s still going through court.
7.16.The [Fijian] hospital put the applicant on 6 medications for her depression. In the first two weeks of arriving in Australia, she became very sick, her depression symptoms worsening. Her mother took the applicant to her private doctor who determined that she had been prescribed the wrong medications for her condition. He changed the prescriptions and the applicant has found that her health has been stable since.
7.17.The doctor wasn’t available to give evidence at the hearing. The applicant intended to ask the doctor to provide a letter. The Tribunal talked to the applicant about the information that would be useful to include in the letter, for example her diagnosis, treatment, medications, how her circumstances have caused or impacted her condition.
7.18.In June 2019, the applicant applied for a protection visa. She had done some study on visas when she worked for [Employer 1], then did her own research in Australia. She believed her circumstances made her eligible for a protection visa.
7.19.Since being in Australia, the applicant completed some short educational [courses], did some volunteering, and [relocated] to a regional centre, and now has an admin [role].
7.20.The applicant sends $150 each week to her daughters in Fiji to help support her grandchildren.
7.21.The applicant believes that if she returns to Fiji it will be a nightmare. Her first husband will stop her from getting her job back in [Employer 1], she’ll have to start from scratch, she doesn’t have a house. She is scared of him because after they divorced he continued to physically abuse her. He’s always blamed her for the children leaving him and returning to her. The children tell her not to come back because their father and stepmother are still stirring things up. Fiji is a small place. [Due to his contacts], the first husband would become aware of her arrival in the country. The applicant could go to live in her village, which is two hours drive from [City 1], however she has no connections there anymore and there is no work so she could not support herself.
7.22.After taking evidence, the Tribunal gave the applicant an opportunity to ring her doctor to request a letter. He wasn’t available to take her call, however she got his email address and said she would email him. The Tribunal gave the applicant one week to provide a letter from the doctor.
The applicant’s mother gave evidence, summarised by the Tribunal as follows:
8.1.She came to Australia in 1985 and is an Australian citizen.
8.2.Her daughter is very well educated and worked for [Employer 1] in Fiji. Her daughter had a very hard life with her first husband who was abusive to her, drank and possibly took drugs; then her second husband died. The government was getting worse.
8.3.Her daughter experienced a lot of stress in Fiji, which made her sick. Once in Australia, she got the right medication and her health is good now.
8.4.She is happy her daughter is with her in Australia as she and her husband are getting older. She wants her daughter to be happy. Her children rely on her. They know what their father is.
Post-hearing submissions
Following the hearing, the applicant provided to the Tribunal a letter from her doctor dated 13 October 2023.
Domestic and family violence – dynamics and risk factors
The National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book 2023 states that:
Domestic and family violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women in the context of intimate partner relationships. Children may be exposed to the violence in a variety of ways or may be directly victimised. While the violence may take place within a range of relationships and take many different forms—physical or non-physical, sexual and non-sexual, direct or indirect, actual or threatened—it is characterised by a pattern of abusive behaviour involving a perpetrator’s exercise of control over the victim, increasingly referred to as coercive control, often for an extended period. This behaviour may occur throughout a relationship, or it may be initiated or exacerbated at times of heightened risk, for example, pregnancy, attempted or actual separation, and during court proceedings dealing with children or joint property matters.
Professionals who work with victims and perpetrators have endeavoured to explain the distinctive nature of domestic and family violence. Commonly referenced is the Duluth “Power and Control Wheel”. This figurative representation identifies domestic and family violence as a cycle of violence in the form of a wheel, comprising an outer ring highlighting physical and sexual violence and an inner ring including descriptions of multiple abusive behaviours with power and control consistently at their centre. Models like this one assist understanding but are not intended to be definitive. Each case of domestic and family violence involves a unique and complex series of facts that must be considered as a whole in order to understand the victim’s experience of violence, and to respond appropriately to risk of future violence and perpetrator accountability.
Making assumptions about parties’ motivations and behaviours, or attempting to categorise violence according to severity or parties’ general circumstances may result in a misunderstanding of the dynamics of violence in a particular case and inappropriate responses to the needs of the victim and perpetrator.
Appendix 1 to Toivonen, C., & Backhouse, C. (2018). National Risk Assessment Principles for domestic and family violence (ANROWS Insights 07/2018). Sydney, NSW: ANROWS states that:
11.1.There are many factors which contribute to the risk of domestic and family violence (DFV). However, findings from empirical studies, academic and practice-based literature, and reports produced by international and Australian domestic violence death review committees and Coroner’s Courts indicate that some risk factors are associated with a higher likelihood of violence reoccurring, serious injury, or death, in the context of intimate partner violence by men against women.
11.2.Below are among the risk factors that indicate high risk of serious harm or death when mediated by other risk factors or an individual’s situation:
11.2.1History of family and domestic violence, being the most consistently identified risk factor for intimate partner lethality and risk of re-assault. Homicide is rarely a random act and often occurs after repeated patterns of physical and sexual abuse and psychologically coercive and controlling behaviours.
11.2.2Separation is particularly dangerous when the perpetrator has been highly controlling during the relationship and continues or escalates his violence following separation in an attempt to reassert control or to punish the victim.
11.2.3Intimate partner sexual violence is a uniquely dangerous form of exerting power and control due to its invasive attack on victims’ bodies and the severity of mental health, physical injury and gynaecological consequences.
11.2.4Perpetrators who threaten to kill their partner or former partner, themselves or others including their children, are particularly dangerous. Threats of this nature are psychologically abusive.
11.2.5Use of a weapon (any tool used by the perpetrator that could injure, kill or destroy property) indicates high risk, particularly if used in the most recent violent incident, as past behaviour strongly predicts future behaviour.
11.2.6The escalation in frequency and severity of violence over time is linked to lethality and often occurs when there are shifts in other dynamic risk factors, such as the attempts by the victim to leave the relationship.
11.2.7Coercive and controlling patterns of behaviours are particularly dangerous and can heighten the risk of lethality, in contexts where other high-risk factors are present, such as attempts by the victim to leave the relationship.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In considering the applicant’s claims and evidence, the Tribunal has taken account of the:
12.1.Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons.
12.2.Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility.
12.3.Department of Home Affairs ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’.
12.4.Country information set out in Attachment B to this decision record.
12.5.Information regarding the dynamics of and risk factors associated with domestic and family violence set out in this decision record.
In particular, the Tribunal notes the following credibility guidelines:
13.1.[6] Evidence considered by the tribunal may include written submissions, an applicant’s oral evidence, oral evidence from other persons, information about conditions and laws in an applicant’s country of origin, expert evidence in the form of written reports or oral evidence and documentary evidence provided by an applicant or the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the department). Applicants for protection visas are often unable to support claims by documentary or other proof.
13.2.[8] The process of determining whether an applicant meets a visa criterion, including whether an applicant is a person who meets the definition of a refugee, often requires the tribunal to decide whether it accepts certain evidence and how much weight to give to that evidence. This process may involve assessing the credibility of an applicant or other persons and documentary evidence.
13.3.[36] The period of time that has elapsed between an applicant’s arrival in Australia and the time when he or she claims protection may be considered when assessing the genuineness or extent of an applicant’s subjective fear[1] of persecution or significant harm.
13.4.[37] A delay in applying for protection should not be the sole reason for doubting an applicant’s claims. There should be other reasons to support a finding that an applicant’s claims are not credible.[2] The significance of delay will depend upon the particular circumstances surrounding the delay and the reasons given for the delay.
13.5.[22] Members need to be mindful that a person may be anxious or nervous due to the environment of a hearing and the significance of the outcome. A person from a different social and cultural environment may experience bewilderment and anxiety. The educational, social and cultural background of a person may affect the manner in which a person provides his or her evidence and the depth of understanding of particular concepts. A person may have had traumatic experiences or be suffering from a disorder or illness which may affect his or her ability to give evidence, his or her memory or ability to observe and recall specific events or details. There may also be mistrust in speaking freely to people in positions of authority.
13.6.[24] All claims, particularly those of a sensitive nature should be carefully considered in a respectful and culturally sensitive way. Claims relating to a person’s sexual orientation or to sexual assault or domestic violence, require particularly sensitive investigation. The tribunal should consider who is present at the time the evidence is to be given and whether it would be appropriate for an interpreter of a particular gender to assist with the hearing.
[1] Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) ALD 346 per Heerey J at 349.
[2] Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) ALD 346; Anandaraj Subramanian v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Carr J, 10 March 1998; Makouei v MIMA, unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox J, 6 February 1998, at 6.
The Tribunal considers the applicant gave a truthful account of what happened to her when she was in Fiji, and her reasons for leaving Fiji and coming to Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was physically, verbally and emotionally abused by her first husband throughout their 10 year marriage and after she left the marriage and home, and including in their workplace, [Employer 1], where the first husband was senior in ranking to the applicant, and that the abuse continued until the applicant left Fiji in 2019.

The Tribunal notes the country information reports that violence against women is prevalent in Fiji and has worsened in recent years. DFAT assesses that women who experience domestic violence are at high risk of violence and moderate risk of discrimination in the form of a lack of access to protection. Family ties, loyalties and traditional hierarchies can protect perpetrators, and relocation is not necessarily helpful given Fiji’s small size and that people can be tracked down through kinship networks.
The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to Fiji, she fears being physically, verbally and emotionally abused by her first husband and, with his influence in [Employer 1], being discriminated against so as to be denied employment or employment that reflects her qualifications and experience.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Fiji, there is a real or substantial chance that within the reasonably foreseeable future the first husband would become aware of the applicant’s whereabouts, no matter her location, and resume the physical, verbal and emotional abuse he perpetrated against her in the past, and to use his influence in [Employer 1] to ensure she is discriminated against so as to be denied employment or employment that reflects her qualifications and experience.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that while she received treatment for depression in Fiji, it was discovered by her doctor in Australia that she had been prescribed the wrong medications.
The Tribunal notes the recent letter from the applicant’s doctor confirms that the applicant was diagnosed with depression on 15 October 2019 and commenced treatment with medication; that she was last re-assessed on 19 January 2021, and her symptoms were in remission. The doctor gave the opinion that the applicant’s moods had normalised on the prescribed medication and she was generally functioning extremely well. The Tribunal notes the doctor did not give an opinion on how the applicant’s circumstances have caused or impacted her condition.
The Tribunal accepts the doctor’s letter as corroborative evidence of the applicant’s depression and treatment.
The Tribunal notes the country information reports that while mental health care is provided free through the public hospital system in Fiji, the availability of care is variable, the number of mental health workers has significantly declined, and the number of admissions for mental health has increased.
The Tribunal notes the Fijian Ministry of Health reported in August 2023 that almost 75% of people with mental illness report that they experience stigma. DFAT assesses this may limit support options from family.
The Tribunal considers the harm to the applicant from ongoing physical, verbal and emotional abuse by the first husband, and the use of his influence in [Employer 1] to ensure she is discriminated against so as to be denied employment or employment that reflects her qualifications and experience, would be exacerbated by her mental health vulnerability and may result in a recurrence of her depression.
The Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant would receive the appropriate treatment in Fiji if there were a recurrence of her depression.
The Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant would seek help from her children to cope with ongoing abuse from the first husband or any recurrence of her depression as she did not do so when she was living in Fiji; and, further, she believes it is her role as mother to support her children and grandchildren, which she has done for many years, apart from those years that the first husband denied her access to the children.
The Tribunal considers it is likely the applicant would be too fearful of the personal consequences to her to seek help from the Fijian authorities or other service for ongoing physical, verbal and emotional abuse by the first husband, and the use of his influence in [Employer 1] to ensure she is discriminated against so as to be denied employment or employment that reflects her qualifications and experience.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Fiji, she would be unable to modify her behaviour to avoid being subjected to physical, verbal and emotional abuse by the first husband, and the use of his influence in [Employer 1] to ensure she is discriminated against so as to be denied employment or employment that reflects her qualifications and experience, because her vulnerability to such abuse and discrimination arises from the history of abuse and discrimination perpetrated against her by the first husband.
The Tribunal notes the country information reports that Fiji’s political climate is currently in a state of flux but there has been no significant political unrest or deterioration of government functions since the Rabuka government was elected in December 2022 elections, ending Bainimarama’s 16 years in power.
The Tribunal notes the country information reports that there is no official discrimination against Indigenous Fijians: they are the majority ethnic group in Fiji and as such enjoy significant social, economic and political capital. The Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), which is part of the coalition government, largely draws its support from Indigenous Fijians, and the Rabuka government has revived the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), which in May 2023 reconvened for the first time in 16 years.
The Tribunal considers there is insufficient evidence before it to conclude that the applicant was discriminated against and harmed by the Fijian authorities under the former government, or would be in the future if she returns to Fiji, other than that motivated and facilitated by the first husband.
The Tribunal notes the country information reports that DFAT is not aware of any official or societal discrimination against failed asylum seekers; and that emigration and return to Fiji are common in Fijian society, and a return would be unlikely to be seen as unusual or attract attention from authorities.
Application of law
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether she is entitled to complementary protection. Attachment A sets out the applicable law.
The Tribunal finds that:
34.1.The applicant is a citizen of Fiji and a non-citizen in Australia.
34.2.The applicant fears being persecuted for the reason that she is a member of a particular social group, being a woman who is the victim of domestic violence and abuse in Fiji, such reason being the essential and significant reason for the persecution.
34.3.There is a real chance that, if the applicant returns to Fiji, she would be persecuted for this reason.
34.4.The persecution would involve serious harm to the applicant and systematic and discriminatory conduct towards the applicant by the first husband.
34.5.The real chance of persecution of the applicant relates to all areas of Fiji.
34.6.There are no effective protection measures available to the applicant in Fiji.
34.7.The applicant could not take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in Fiji.
34.8.The applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s 5J of the Act.
34.9.The applicant is outside Fiji, her country of nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of Fiji.
34.10.The applicant is a refugee as defined by s 5H(1)(a) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Kate Chapple
Member

ATTACHMENT A
Summary of applicable law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B).
Relevant extracts from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
ATTACHMENT B
Country Information
Domestic and family violence
Violence against women is prevalent in Fiji. Between January and July 2022, the Fiji Women’s Crisis Center (FWCC) recorded 791 domestic violence cases, an increase from previous years.¹¹ In 2020, 10 women died from domestic violence.¹² In March 2022, the FWCC reported that 64 per cent of women who have ever been in an intimate relationship had experienced physical or sexual violence. Of these, 61 per cent of women have experienced physical violence and 34 per cent have been sexually abused or raped.¹³ In 2014, the FWCC reported that every day in Fiji, 43 women are injured, one woman is permanently disabled and 71 lose consciousness as a result of domestic violence.¹⁴
The situation has worsened considerably in recent years, with NGOs reporting a ‘concerning increase’¹⁵ in gender-based violence since the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁶ The FWCC reported a 300 per cent increase in domestic-violence related calls to its hotline in the month following the introduction of COVID-19 related curfews and lockdown measures in 2020.¹⁷
Domestic violence is a specific offence under Fijian law.¹⁹ Police practice a ‘no drop’ policy that requires them to pursue investigations of domestic violence even if the victim withdraws the accusation.²⁰ This policy is designed to prevent victims from being pressured by family to drop charges.²¹ However, women’s organisations report that police do not consistently follow this policy.²²
Magistrates can issue restraining orders that are enforced by police. DFAT assesses that these ‘provide some protection.’²³
In the Indigenous and Indo-Fijian communities, traditional and religious reconciliation practices are sometimes used to mitigate domestic violence sentences.²⁴ Under these practices, there is significant pressure on women to reconcile with husbands and partners following incidents of domestic violence, rather than seeking justice through the formal legal system.²⁵
Reports identify numerous challenges regarding police protection from gender-based violence in Fiji. DFAT states that police protection is available, but not consistently.²⁹ According to DFAT, some police stations do not have the equipment or transport to effectively deal with gender-based violence cases.³⁰ DFAT notes that women who seek help from advocates, such as the FWCC, may receive more assistance than from the police.³¹ The United States Department of State (USDOS) reports lax enforcement by the police of domestic violence laws.³² In past years, Fijian authorities released offenders without a conviction on the condition they maintained good behaviour.³³ A review by the Fijian Auditor General in 2019 found that there was ‘inconsistency’ in the application of legislation that prohibits violence against women.³⁴ The review found police often pressure women to reconcile with perpetrators and were sometimes unhelpful or hostile to domestic violence victims who filed police reports.³⁵ During 2022, Fijian courts dismissed some domestic violence cases and gave perpetrators light sentences.³⁶
DFAT assesses that women who experience domestic violence are by definition, at high risk of violence and at moderate risk of discrimination in the form of a lack of access to protection.³⁷ According to DFAT, women who experience violence in rural areas (including the outer islands) may have more difficulty escaping violence, including because shelters are unlikely to exist in these areas, and therefore family members may have to be relied upon for protection.³⁸ Family ties, loyalties and traditional hierarchies can protect perpetrators. DFAT assesses that relocation is ‘not necessarily helpful’ given Fiji’s small size and that people can be tracked down through kinship networks.³⁹
NGOs provide some support services to women and girls who experience violence. The main NGO providing such support is the FWCC, whose services include counselling, social support and community education.⁴⁰ Shelters are available in urban areas.⁴¹ According to United Nations Women, quality essential services for women and children escaping violence is often limited or unavailable, with urban women having the most access, though at varied levels of care.⁴²
The FWCC provides a 24-hour telephone crisis counselling service that can coordinate emergency assistance throughout the country.⁴³ In March 2022, the FWCC’s Co-Ordinator reported it had received 10,000 calls for help over the last year (7,000 of which were for domestic violence).⁴⁴ Lawyers and counsellors may also be available to victims.⁴⁵
Footnotes
11 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, pp.15- 16, 20230322095436
12 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.17, 20220520095336
13 ‘Fiji’s Domestic Violence Average Rate At 64%’, Fiji Sun, 12 March 2022, 20230301115306
14 ‘Fijian w omen’s experiences of domestic violence and mothers’ perceived impact of children’s exposure to abuse in the home’, Tonsing, J, International Social Work, Volume 63, Issue 1, January 2020, 20230424143444
15 '‘Crisis within a crisis’: Violence against w omen surges in Fiji', Sheldon Chanel, Aljazeera, 24 February 2021, 20210603124009
16 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021 - Fiji', Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State, 12 April 2022, p.16, 20220413131329; 'Freedom in the World 2023 - Fiji', Freedom House, 31 August 2023, 20230831112859; 'Amnesty International Report 2021/22: The State of the World's Human Rights', Amnesty International, 29 March 2022, 20220330091551; ‘Access to safe houses key for victims of violence in Fiji: govt’, Radio New Zealand, 16 September 2020, 20200921071316
17 ‘'‘Crisis within a crisis’: Violence against w omen surges in Fiji', Sheldon Chanel, Aljazeera, 24 February 2021, 20210603124009
19 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
20 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
21 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
22 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
23 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
24 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
25 ‘Report of the Auditor General of the Republic of Fiji: Coordination of Actions of Elimination of Violence against Women Performance Audit’, Office of the Auditor General Republic of Fiji, 2019, p.16, 20230424144325
29 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
30 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
31 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
32 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
33 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
34 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
35 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
36 'Freedom in the World 2023 - Fiji', Freedom House, 31 August 2023, 20230831112859; 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
37 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
38 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
39 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
40 ‘Our Services’, Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre, undated, accessed 1 March 2023, 20230424143849; 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.16, 20230322095436
41 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336; ‘Shelter for domestic violence victims’, The Fiji Times, 21 March 2021, 20230424144119
42 ‘Pacific Partnership to End Violence Against Women and Girls (Pacific Partnership): Fiji Country Summary’, UN Women et al, June 2022, p.5, 20230907123934
43 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
44 ‘Fiji’s Domestic Violence Average Rate At 64%’, Fiji Sun, 12 March 2022, 20230301115306
45 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.18, 20220520095336
The DFAT Country Information Report for Fiji dated 20 May 2022 provides (inter alia) that:
5.28 DFAT is not aware of any official or societal discrimination against failed asylum seekers. Many asylum seekers begin their journey by responding to advertisements that promise a job and a Medicare card in Australia. These advertisements are scams with the organisers later making asylum claims on behalf of applicants that the applicant may not be aware of at the time they sign up. Emigration and return to Fiji are common in Fijian society. Many Fijians have cultural and family links to Australia, and a return would be unlikely to be seen as unusual or attract attention from authorities.
Fiji country information current as at 25 August 2023
There is no official discrimination against Indigenous Fijians.²² Indigenous Fijians are the majority ethnic group in Fiji and as such enjoy significant social, economic and political capital.²³ The overwhelming majority of government services are centralised and provided on a non-discriminatory basis. Other services, including rural development, are provided through the Indigenous Fijian administration and advantage Indigenous Fijians or Rotumans.²⁴ Much of the British-origin ‘native administration’ system, set up to protect Indigenous Fijian culture, continues modified and renamed, and is a form of positive discrimination.²⁵ The Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), which is part of the coalition government, largely draws its support from Indigenous Fijians.²⁶The Rabuka government has revived the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), which in May 2023 reconvened for the first time in 16 years. The GCC is the highest chiefly political body in Fiji and was disbanded following the 2006 coup. In the past, critics of the GCC have claimed that the body excluded minority groups including Indo-Fijians; however, the new GCC claims it is keen to promote multiculturalism.²⁷ It is unclear what role the GCC will play; a review is currently underway.²⁸
Fiji’s political climate is currently in a state of flux but there has been no significant political unrest or deterioration of government functions since the new government was elected.¹⁶² In the December 2022 elections, Prime Minister Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama’s FijiFirst Party failed to win a majority, ending his 16 years in power.¹⁶³ FijiFirst won the popular vote (42.5 per cent); however, it only won 26 seats, just short of the 28 needed to form government.¹⁶⁴ The new Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka of the People's Alliance (PA), leads a three party coalition that includes the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) and the National Federation Party (NFP).¹⁶⁵ Rabuka instigated both 1987 coups and served as Prime Minister between 1992 and 1999.¹⁶⁶ His coalition holds a slim majority in parliament.¹⁶⁷ Despite some irregularities, international observers assessed the electoral process as being free and fair overall.¹⁶⁸
Mental health care is available through the public health system, although most people are cared for at home rather than in medical facilities.³²²Mental health care through the public system is free, with the WHO noting that patients usually pay nothing at the point of service for care or medications.³²³ Availability of care varies between locations; there is a lack of mental health services in more remote areas and counsellors are not available.³²⁴ Fiji has one psychiatric facility (St. Giles Psychiatric Hospital in Suva) and four mental health outpatient facilities attached to other hospitals.³²⁵ Facilities and treatment options at St. Giles are basic and medication may not be available.³²⁶ There are also three units in general hospitals that provide inpatient mental health care.³²⁷ The country has five psychiatrists, 46 mental health nurses and no psychologists.³²⁸ There is one child/adolescent psychiatrist in Fiji.³²⁹ The number of mental health care workers has declined significantly in recent years, from 17.59 per 100,000 people in 2014 to 6.07 per 100,000 people in 2020.³³⁰ The number of community-based mental health services has similarly declined from 3.03 per 100,000 people in 2017 to 0.11 per 100,000 people in 2020.³³¹ At the same time, the number of admissions for mental health care has increased.³³² Fiji has experienced an increase in mental health concerns since the COVID-19 pandemic, with suicide rates increasing by 19 per cent in the first months of 2023, compared to the previous year.³³³ Prior to COVID-19, St. Giles Hospital treated 40 patients a day, with 45 admissions a month. Since 2022, 60 patients are treated daily with 75 admissions a month.³³⁴ In March 2023, the Assistant Minister for Women noted the lack of ongoing aftercare available for patients upon discharge from St. Giles Psychiatric Hospital.³³⁵
Stigma surrounds mental health in Fiji.³³⁶ According to DFAT, this may limit support options available from family.³³⁷ Negative attitudes towards mental illness are less common amongst the wealthy and those who are more highly educated.³³⁸ In August 2023, the Fijian Ministry of Health reported that almost 75 per cent of people with mental illness report that they experience stigma.³³⁹
Footnotes
22 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.12
23 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.12
24 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.12; ‘DFAT Country Information Report Fiji’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 27 September 2017, p.13
25 ‘DFAT Country Information Report Fiji’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 27 September 2017, p.13; 'The People Have Spoken: The 2014 Elections in Fiji', Ratuva, S and Law son, S (eds), Australian National University, 1 March 2016, pp. 42–44; ‘Fiji: The politics of conflict reduction’, Fraenkel, J, Routledge, 2013, p. 171; 'Fiji Before the Storm: elections and the politics of development', Lal, B V, Australian National University E Press, 2000, p. 74
26 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.11
27 ‘Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs reconvenes after 16 years, promises racial equality’, ABC News, 24 May 2023
28 ‘'Symbol of a worldview ': Understand the GCC and its role first, Fijian academic says’, Radio New Zealand, 12 June 2023
162 'Fiji - Country Information - Political Update', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 02 August 2023
163 ‘Fiji’s new politics', Interpreter, The (Low y Institute for International Policy), 17 January 2023; 'Fiji: A chance to stop political history repeating', Interpreter, The (Low y Institute for International Policy), 14 February 2023
164 ‘Cautious Optimism for Fiji’s Coalition Government', Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA), 08 March 2023; ‘Fiji elections 2022: Bainimarama loses parliamentary majority as count finalised’, The Guardian, 18 December 2022
165 'Fiji - In brief', Economist Intelligence Unit, n.d., Accessed 19 June 2023
166 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.16
167 ‘Fiji’s new politics’, The Interpreter, 17 January 2023
168 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Fiji', US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.11
322 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.8
323 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022; ‘Mental health in Fiji’, The Borgen Project, 30 March 2023
324 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.8
325 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022; ‘Mental health in Fiji’, The Borgen Project, 30 March 2023
326 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.8
327 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
328 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
329 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
330 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
331 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
332 ‘Mental Health Atlas 2020 Country Profile: Fiji’, The World Health Organization, 15 April 2022
333 ‘An increasing number of suicide cases remains a concern’, Fiji Village, 9 February 2023
334 ‘Mental health admissions on the rise’, FBC News, 5 June 2023, 20230621103213
335 'Mental health issues – Ministry begins work for proper care', Fiji Times, The, 12 March 2023; 'Stigma attached to mental health remains a key concern - Kiran', Fiji Village, 22 February 2023
336 'Stigma attached to mental health remains a key concern - Kiran', Fiji Village, 22 February 2023
337 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.7
338 'DFAT Country Information Report Fiji', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.7
339 ‘Almost 75 per cent of persons with mental illness experience stigma – Health Ministry’, Fiji Village, 6 August 2023

[2023] AATA 4520

18 October 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing