2209616 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal that affirmed a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or alternatively, whether she would suffer significant harm if returned to Fiji. The applicant claimed to have opposed the current regime in Fiji and feared being targeted and threatened upon return, alleging emotional and mental harm.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or if there was a real chance of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. This involved considering whether any claimed fear of persecution was based on political opinion, whether it was systematic and discriminatory, and whether the applicant could access effective protection in Fiji.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims of a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion. While she expressed opposition to the Fijian regime and claimed to have been victimised, she had not articulated any political opinion in a high-profile manner and was not a member of any particular political party. The Tribunal noted that the applicant and her husband had not provided documentary evidence to support their claims, despite being given an opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that any psychological distress experienced by the applicant was not targeted, systematic, or discriminatory by the State, and that she had embellished her claims. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of relocation within Fiji and the availability of state protection, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of persecution or significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant and her husband might consider seeking Ministerial intervention.