2011716 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Fiji of mixed European and Indigenous Fijian heritage, sought a protection visa. He claimed that upon returning to Fiji, he would face a real risk of harm due to his ethnicity and past experiences of verbal abuse and threats of physical violence from Indigenous Fijian workers in his previous employment. The dispute centred on whether these claims met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian migration law. The matter was heard by the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's claimed fear of harm if returned to Fiji was well-founded for reasons of race or ethnicity, and whether there was a real chance he would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons specified in section 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was also required to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of being ostracised and threatened due to his "Kailoma" (mixed heritage) status in Fiji. It noted that while the applicant had experienced threats in his previous employment, he had subsequently found alternative employment in Fiji where he did not report any threatening behaviour. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in sections 5J and 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which define a well-founded fear of persecution and the criteria for protection visas. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee definition or the complementary protection provisions.

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