2006964 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant, a national of Fiji. The applicant claimed she feared harm upon return to Fiji due to the country's political and economic situation, her former trade union membership, and threats from a neighbour. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including her financial support of her family in Fiji and her husband's chronic illness.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court was required to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under the "refugee" criterion, as defined by section 5H(1)(a) of the Act, or under the "complementary protection" criterion, as defined by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee, as there was no well-founded fear of persecution for any of the specified reasons. While acknowledging the applicant's financial hardship and the poverty faced by her family in Fiji, the court determined that these circumstances did not amount to "significant harm" as defined by the Act. The court also noted that claims related to political and union grounds had been discontinued, and the applicant's husband was no longer capable of causing her harm. However, a new claim regarding fear of harm from a neighbour, stemming from a longstanding dispute involving verbal and physical abuse, was raised. The court found that there was a real chance of intentionally inflicted violence from this neighbour, exacerbated by an inconsistent police response and the neighbour's son being in the police force.

Consequently, the court remitted the decision for reconsideration, indicating that the applicant's claims regarding harm from her neighbour warranted further assessment under the complementary protection provisions.