2312123 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa by Applicant 1, who claimed to have suffered police mistreatment and abuse in Fiji, including a random attack without provocation. The applicant also alleged racial discrimination against indigenous Fijians (iTaukei), citing the abolition of the Great Council of Chiefs and his rejection for an employment extension. Further grounds for protection included his brother’s conviction and imprisonment for sedition and his own Christian religion.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Applicant 1 had a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm if returned to Fiji, specifically in relation to claims of racial discrimination, political opinion, and religion. This involved assessing whether the alleged mistreatment and abuse constituted persecution, and whether the Fijian state could provide effective protection. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's ethnicity, political opinions critical of the former Bainimarama government, or religious beliefs placed him at real risk of serious harm.

The Tribunal accepted that Applicant 1's brother was convicted and imprisoned for sedition, but found this was not demonstrative of discrimination against indigenous Fijians. Instead, it was viewed as the former government suppressing any challenges to its authority, regardless of ethnicity. The Tribunal found no evidence that Applicant 1 was or would be implicated by his brother's conviction. Regarding the employment rejection, the Tribunal found it was not racially motivated, but rather due to the recruitment of external candidates with perceived relevant experience to improve the employer's performance. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was not a real chance that Applicant 1 would suffer serious harm due to his indigenous Fijian ethnicity, political opinion, or religion if returned to Fiji.