2313980 (Refugee)

The applicants, a mother and her son, sought protection visas after their application for a Partner visa was refused and subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Fiji, based on the applicant mother's conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and her marriage to a Muslim man, which was vehemently opposed by her influential Hindu family.

The court was required to determine if the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant mother had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, she and her son would suffer significant harm. The court also considered whether effective protection measures were available in Fiji and if it would be reasonable for the applicants to relocate within Fiji to avoid any perceived risk.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. The court noted that the applicant had not experienced harm in Fiji prior to her marriage and conversion. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of threats and social ostracism from her family, who held significant positions within the Hindu community and political circles in Fiji, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant had not provided recent medical reports or extensive supporting evidence for her mental health claims, and that the risk of harm was not sufficiently established to meet the threshold for complementary protection. The court ultimately found that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.