2103286 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Fiji, sought a protection visa, claiming a fear of persecution based on her political opinion. The dispute centred on whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji, specifically due to her alleged participation in the campaign activities of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA). The case was heard by Sydelle Muling, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, and alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's evidence regarding her involvement with SODELPA and the potential consequences of her return to Fiji.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding her political opinion and her reasons for supporting SODELPA to be lacking and unconvincing. While the applicant claimed to have campaigned for SODELPA, her explanations for supporting the party, such as "education grants and work," were not elaborated upon. Furthermore, her recollection of what she would tell communities about the party's platform if elected was vague, and she stated she could not remember specific details. The Tribunal also noted that when asked directly about her fears upon return, she indicated she did not believe anything would happen to her, which was inconsistent with her claims of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. There was no suggestion that she qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.