2101809 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa to a national of Fiji. The applicant claimed to be a small business owner and money lender who faced risks of financial failure, ostracism by family and community, and potential harm in Fiji. The delegate had refused the visa, finding the applicant had not established a nexus to protected grounds, could obtain protection from family, and that economic conditions did not constitute significant harm. The applicant sought review by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had provided sufficient particulars and evidence to establish their claims, and whether the claimed fear of harm was linked to one of the protected grounds. The Tribunal also considered whether failed business owners constituted a particular social group for the purposes of protection obligations.

The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus is on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, with no obligation on the Tribunal to assist in establishing the claim. The Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive travel history between Fiji and Australia. Despite being invited to provide submissions and attend a hearing, the applicant ultimately consented to a decision on the papers without a hearing and without lodging any pre-hearing submissions or statements. The Tribunal found that failed business owners were not a particular social group and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a real risk of significant harm on any of the protected grounds.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.