2011933 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, a husband and wife, who were born in Fiji. The applicants arrived in Australia in 2019 and applied for visas in April 2019. Their applications were refused by the Department in July 2020. The applicants subsequently appeared before the Tribunal in December 2023, with the hearing conducted with the assistance of an interpreter. The Tribunal Member, Jason Cabarrús, considered all documentation and the applicants' evidence.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if they were refugees, as defined by section 5H, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of persecution in Fiji. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered if the applicants met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal Member found that the applicants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The first applicant stated that while there were violent acts in Fiji, they had not personally experienced any harm and were not concerned about facing harm if returned. He also indicated that the claims in their application form, prepared by an authorised recipient, did not reflect their actual experiences. The second applicant expressed general worry about potential violence but acknowledged this was not based on past experiences. Both applicants primarily expressed a desire to remain in Australia for better living conditions, employment opportunities, and to be reunited with their son. Considering this evidence alongside country information indicating Fiji is generally stable and secure with a police capacity to provide protection, the Tribunal Member concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria set out in section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and therefore could not be granted the visa.