2107713 (Refugee)

The applicants, a husband, wife, and their sons, sought protection visas after arriving in Australia on visitor visas. The husband claimed he left Fiji with his family to avoid being recalled to military duties that involved assaulting people, which he objected to. He feared that if he refused to participate in these duties, which he believed were politically motivated and involved in drug and criminal operations, he would be harmed by the Fijian military. The wife and sons did not make independent protection claims. The matter came before the Tribunal for review of the decision not to grant the protection visas.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant husband held a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically an imputed political opinion, such that Australia had protection obligations towards him. This required determining if he met the criteria for being a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including whether there was a real chance of persecution involving serious harm, and if effective protection measures were available in Fiji. A secondary issue was whether the wife and sons, as family members, could also be granted protection visas based on the husband's claims.

The Tribunal considered the applicant husband's history in the Fijian military and his stated objections to participating in assaults during operations related to drug and criminal matters. It noted his fear of being recalled to such duties and the potential for harm if he refused. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. It found that the husband's claims did not establish that he would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards any of the applicants.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas. As the primary applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa, his family members were also unable to satisfy the criteria for being granted such a visa.