2305972 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1483

2305972 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1483 (16 APRIL 2025)

DECISION AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2305972
Tribunal:General Member J Lock
Date:16 April 2025

Place:Adelaide
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

STATEMENT MADE ON 16 APRIL 2025 AT 1:30PM

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Fiji – race – indigenous Fijian iTaukei ethnicity – racial discrimination – does not fear harm or mistreatment from Fijian authorities – access to welfare system and informal supports – financial hardship –membership of particular social group – single mothers in Fiji – affects the whole population rather than the applicant specifically – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 April 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Fiji, applied for the visa on 1 November 2022. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion if she were to return to Fiji. The delegate was also not satisfied that there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of returning to Fiji.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 April 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms [A] [at] the applicant’s place of employment. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.

BACKGROUND

The applicant was born in [year] in [City 1], Fiji and is [age] years old. The applicant is of indigenous Fijian or iTaukei ethnicity.
The applicant grew up in [City 1] and left school after [a grade] in high school. The applicant attained a [Certificate].
The applicant is the third of five…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2305972 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2305972 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1483
Case: [2025] ARTA 1483
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were 2305972, a citizen of Fiji, and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The dispute concerned the applicant's application for a protection visa, which was ultimately refused. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a person to whom Australia owed protection under the Refugee Convention and its Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The applicant argued that she belonged to a particular social group, namely single mothers in Fiji, who faced racial discrimination and economic hardship.

The court examined the applicant's claims, considering whether the Fijian authorities' actions amounted to harm or mistreatment that would warrant a protection visa. The court also explored the concept of membership in a particular social group and whether the applicant's circumstances met the necessary threshold. It was established that the applicant did not fear harm or mistreatment from the Fijian authorities and had access to the welfare system and informal support networks, which mitigated her situation. The court further determined that the discrimination and financial hardship faced by single mothers in Fiji affected the population as a whole, rather than being specific to the applicant.

After careful consideration, the court found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The court concluded that the Fijian authorities' actions did not constitute harm or mistreatment sufficient to warrant protection, and the applicant's membership in a particular social group did not meet the necessary threshold. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant's visa application. No further orders were made.

Orders