2010994 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant, a Fijian national, a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm in Fiji due to his ethnicity, mental health issues stemming from past sexual abuse, and anxiety related to political instability. The delegate had refused the visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for protection under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), noting the availability of healthcare in Fiji and the lack of evidence of a political profile or specific threat.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of fear of harm and the credibility of the evidence presented, including evidence from his father and stepmother. The Tribunal also had to consider its obligations regarding the applicant's responsibility to provide particulars and evidence for his claims, as well as the inherent difficulty in assessing credibility and the significance of any inconsistencies in the applicant's account.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not discharged his onus to establish that he met the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's personal background and the evidence presented, including the testimony of his father and stepmother, the Tribunal identified significant inconsistencies in the applicant's account. These inconsistencies, particularly concerning his relationship with his father and his reasons for leaving Fiji, were found to be of sufficient weight to undermine the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal noted that it was not required to uncritically accept all allegations and that the applicant bore the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The applicant was found not to be a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under the relevant sections of the Act.