2012376 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Fijian national, sought a protection visa, claiming Australia had protection obligations towards him under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia to Fiji. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of mistreatment at work, political conditions, and economic hardship in Fiji.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under s 36(2)(a) of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or the criteria for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was also required to assess the applicant's claims against the relevant country information for Fiji and consider the evidentiary burden placed on the applicant under s 5AAA of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The applicant's claims were found to be vague, and the evidence presented, including witness testimony based on what the applicant had told them, did not meet the required standard of proof. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a stable employment history and education in Fiji, and his identity documents were consistent with his claims. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not access effective protection in Fiji or that any risk he faced was not faced by the population generally.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2) of the Act.