2006689 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Fijian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Fiji due to his involvement in an altercation with soldiers and police during a traditional ceremony in June 2018. He alleged he was assaulted and held at gunpoint during this incident, which he stated triggered past trauma from the 2000 Fijian coup. He also belatedly claimed forced resignation from his job and prior run-ins with local police, as well as his mother's political connections and her own application for protection in another country.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H, or if he faced a real risk of significant harm as defined by section 36(2)(aa) and 36(2A), or if he qualified as a family member of someone who did. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's activities in Australia after his visa refusal, which were accepted as genuine, and the impact of his alleged trauma and mental health on his claims.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there were no substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Fiji, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the incident in June 2018, while traumatic, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return, particularly given the limited consequences of the incident and changes in Fijian government and indigenous affairs policies. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria as a family member of a person holding a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.