2218052 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa on the basis that Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or s 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Fiji, particularly in relation to her father's religious beliefs, her status as a single female, and her employment prospects. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by s 5J of the Act. This included assessing whether she would face persecution for her chosen religious affiliation, distinct from her father's, and whether her status as a single female in Fiji, coupled with her father's religious influence, would lead to harm. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia, the applicant would suffer significant harm, as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's difficult upbringing and her father's restrictive religious beliefs, the Tribunal found that the feared harm was not for a reason specified in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's father's religious beliefs and his potential coercion did not constitute persecution for a protected ground. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion, noting that the applicant had not demonstrated that she could not reasonably relocate within Fiji or obtain protection from Fijian authorities. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant's father's influence and the cultural expectations for single females in Fiji, while potentially difficult, did not rise to the level of persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).