2006667 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Fijian citizen. The applicant claimed she feared harm upon return to Fiji, citing past domestic violence and anticipated economic hardship. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.

The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee convention or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji, thereby engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal history, including her marital relationships and financial circumstances, in light of country information pertaining to Fiji.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness but concluded that while she would likely experience financial hardship upon return to Fiji, this hardship was not targeted at her personally and did not extend beyond the general population. It was not satisfied that the anticipated economic conditions constituted "serious harm" or threatened her capacity to subsist for reasons related to her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not meet the complementary protection criterion, as there were no substantial grounds to believe she would suffer severe pain or suffering, cruel or inhuman treatment, degrading treatment, or arbitrary deprivation of life.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant.