2316012 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 2368

2316012 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2368 (19 March 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2316012

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji

MEMBER:Bryn Butler

DATE:19 March 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 19 March 2024 at 2:52pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – police harassment and brutality – forced to vote in election – change in government in Fiji – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. The applicant is a [age]-year old man who is a citizen of Fiji. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

   Protection visa application

2. The applicant arrived in Australia in January 2020 as part of the Pacific Labour Mobility scheme. He applied for the protection visa on 9 August 2021.

3. In the visa application, the applicant set out his claims for protection, which are summarised as follows:

   ·He left Fiji with extreme fear because of what he experienced in [City 1], Fiji. He attempted to stow away on a cargo ship to leave Fiji in February 2019, but was unsuccessful. He was taken into police custody and was questioned about his involvement in the Fiji general election which took place in November 2018.

   ·The police in [City 1] are brutal, and accused him of misleading voters during the November 2018 general election, where he considers the FijiFirst party rigged. He was questioned (in February 2019) about something he didn’t do, or know about. He was punched and beaten, and received death threats. He was taken from the wharf, spent all of Saturday and Sunday in police custody and was only given one cup of water on Saturday evening for dinner. He was accused of being part of a group of young men who caused instability during the election in 2018. He was in [City 1] during the time of the election, but was not involved in anything which the police accused him of.

   ·Since the time in police custody, he was searching for a way to leave Fiji, and he was fortunate to be granted a visa to come to Australia as part of the labour scheme.

   ·He cannot seek help in Fiji in respect of those who tortured him. Cases are swept under the carpet, and abuse will continue. He referred to there being continual threats as some of the police officers were military officers.

   ·He believes that he will be harmed if he returns to Fiji, as Fiji is at a boiling point (when he made the visa application), and he believes there will be no elections in 2022 and there will be a national protest.

4. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 15 September 2023 on the basis that they were not satisfied that the applicant was owed protection by Australia.

   Application for review

5. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 6 October 2023 for review of the delegate’s decision.

   Hearing

6. The applicant appeared before me on 18 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.

7. The hearing was scheduled to take place in person. On the day of the hearing, the applicant contacted the Tribunal and requested a hearing by video conference, as his flight to Melbourne was delayed. I exercised my discretion to hold the hearing by video. I determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the individual circumstances of the applicant. I also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video. I am satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments as there were no connection difficulties and the applicant was able to respond to all my questions and express himself clearly.

   Criteria for a protection visa

8. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

9. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

10. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

11. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

12. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

13. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, I have taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Consideration of claims and evidence

14. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or under the complementary protection criterion.

15. For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Applicant’s background

16. The applicant told me that he was born in a village in Fiji. He is the youngest of [number] siblings. All his siblings and his parents are in Fiji, and his siblings live in the village and earn an income from farming. He completed primary school and completed high school up to year [level]. He was married, and has one daughter. His wife safely passed away last year in a car accident in Fiji. He said he was not granted a bridging visa to return to Fiji from Australia at the time of his wife’s death.

17. After completing year [level] in 2011, he did farmwork in his village for approximately three years. He moved to Suva for work where he lived for two years, and then he moved to [City 1] for work in 2018 where he worked in a [business] assisting with the storage of goods, and unloading deliveries. He arrived in Australia in January 2020 to participate in the labour mobility scheme, working in [Industry 1]. He said he was engaged in the labour scheme for three years. His first job was in Queensland, and then he moved to Victoria in mid 2021. Once he finished his time in the labour scheme, he moved to South Australia, where he now resides and works in [Industry 2].

18. Since coming to Australia, he has been sending money to his family in Fiji. He had been sending money to his wife, and since her passing he has sent money to his father-in-law who looks after his daughter.

    Cargo ship and police incident

19. I asked the applicant how his visa application was prepared. He said that he was assisted by the person who is his authorised recipient. He said that this person filled out the form, and confirmed that he knows what was written in the application. The applicant said that he told the person what to write in the form.

20. I asked the applicant what he feared in Fiji. He said that he would face the same harassment that he faced in Fiji during the election campaign, which was harassment by police. However, he added that he didn’t believe that it would happen now because of the change in government. I asked the applicant to clarify whether he thought he would be harmed, or whether the situation for him had improved because of the change in government. He said that, despite the change in government, there is a fear in him that he will be questioned about what happened before he left Fiji and he fears it may happen again. He said he fears that the police will dig up old cases, and he fears being beaten and arrested. I asked the applicant why he thought he would be beaten and arrested, and he said that it was because of the old case and that the previous government was harsh on citizens. When I pointed out that the government had changed, which was something he had brought up himself, he said he was not sure what would happen.

21. I asked the applicant to describe what had happened to him in Fiji which led to him leaving Fiji. He said he was working on a shipping vessel with five or six people in [City 1], and they were loading and unloading cargo, and that the police were mistakenly suspicious that they were loading drugs onto the ship. They were arrested and beaten by the police. I asked why he was working on a cargo ship, and he said that it was connected to [his] job.

22. I asked the applicant to describe what the police did. He said that they arrested him and the others he was working with, beat them and put them in a prison cell where he stayed overnight. He said he was released the following morning, and wasn’t charged with any offences.

23. I asked the applicant if there were any other incidents with the police. He said it was only during the election. I asked the applicant to clarify, and he said it was during the 2018 election and he was at his village and forced to attend the election. I asked him to elaborate, and whether he was forced to vote for a particular candidate. He said that he was forced to vote in the election in general (and not for a specific candidate).

24. The applicant’s account of the events which led to him leaving Fiji which he discussed at hearing was markedly different from the events described in his protection visa application. At the hearing, he told me that he was working on a cargo ship in connection with his job at [a business] and the police were suspicious that he, and the others working on the ship, were smuggling drugs, and that’s why he was arrested. However, in the visa application he said that he was trying to stowaway in a cargo ship and that the police arrested him and accused him of misleading voters in the November 2018 election. Given the differences in the account of the events that led to him leaving Fiji, I put to the applicant that I had concerns about his evidence about the reason for his departure from Fiji and that I may not accept that the events occurred. I asked the applicant whether there was a reason for the difference (between the visa application and what he told me at hearing) in his account of what had happened. He said that the reason they were loading cargo was for the purpose of being stowaways, and the police arrived at that time. I again pointed out that he had earlier referred to the police being interested in him and the other workers because they mistakenly suspected them of smuggling drugs rather than because of involvement in the November 2018 election, and he said that the police were suspicious about what they had loaded. At the hearing, the applicant also referred to being released the following morning, whereas in the visa application, the applicant said he was held all of Saturday and Sunday. In addition, in the protection visa application, the applicant said he was in [City 1] during the November 2018 but at the hearing, he said he was in his village and forced to vote in the election.

25. The applicant’s explanation for the difference in the account of events which led to him leaving Fiji did not address my concern. He did not explain why there are two different reasons for the arrest, being misleading voters in the November 2018 election and the police being suspicious that they were smuggling drugs. While police may have been suspicious about what they were loading on the ship, he had earlier referred to this suspicion and said it was because they were smuggling drugs and did not refer to any issues with the November 2018 election. I had earlier asked the applicant if there were other incidents with the police, and he referred to the November 2018 election but that he was forced to vote in the election, and did not refer to being suspected of influencing voters. He also did not refer to the prospect of being a stowaway earlier. If he was attempting to flee the country as a stowaway (which he referred to in his visa application), it is significant that he did not initially refer to it in his account of the event at the hearing.

26. Given my concerns about the applicant’s differing accounts of the incident, particularly the different reasons for arrest, and because I find that the difference between accounts is significant and was not explained by the applicant, I do not accept his claim that he was arrested or beaten by the police in connection with an incident on a cargo ship for any reason. I do not accept that the applicant was of interest to the police in Fiji for any reason and, given I do not accept that the event claimed by the applicant occurred, I do not accept that he will be of interest to the police in Fiji for this reason, or for any other reason now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Claim that he was forced to vote in election; change in government in Fiji in December 2022

27. At the hearing he claimed that he was forced to vote in the November 2018 election. I accept that the applicant was required to vote in the November 2018 election. However, he was not encouraged, or forced, to vote for a particular party in that election and was free to exercise his right to vote for a party other than the FijiFirst party. I do not consider that being required to vote in the November 2018 amounts to serious or significant harm, and the applicant has not claimed that he will be forced to vote in an upcoming election for a party he does not support.

28. The applicant indicated that he was not a supporter of the FijiFirst party (which was the party in power when the applicant was last in Fiji). The applicant acknowledged the government in Fiji has changed since he departed Fiji, and that he thought he might not be harassed by police in Fiji in the future because of the change in government but he wasn’t sure. I have considered whether he would be of interest to the authorities in Fiji for any reason.

29. The former Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, launched a coup d’état in 2006, becoming interim Prime Minister in 2007. Bainimarama’s FijiFirst party went on to win the 2014 and 2018 elections. However, in the December 2022 elections, Bainimarama’s FijiFirst Party failed to win a majority, ending his 16 years in power.[1] The new Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka of the People's Alliance (PA), leads a three party coalition that includes the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) and the National Federation Party (NFP).[2] The transition of power has been peaceful, with the military refusing to intervene.[3]

    [1] ‘Fiji’s new politics', Interpreter, The (Lowy Institute for International Policy), 17 January 2023; 'Fiji: A chance to stop political history repeating', Interpreter, The (Lowy Institute for

    [2] Rabuka sworn in as Fiji prime minister after close election | AP News ( 24 December 2022.

    [3] ‘Can Fiji keep its democracy in 2023?’, East Asia Forum, 3 February 2023; ‘The number

30. As I have found above, I do not accept that the applicant came to the attention of the authorities while the former Bainimarama government was in power and was not arrested or beaten by police. I accept that the applicant was not, and is not, a supporter of the FijiFirst party, however, as I put to the applicant, even if he were considered an opponent of the former government, no reports have been located of former Prime Minister Bainimarama, his supporters, or the military pursuing Fijians who opposed the former government, since the Rabuka government was elected.[4]

    [4] Sources consulted include CISNET, UNHCR Refworld, The European Country of Origin Information Network (ECOI), US Department of State, NGO and human rights organisations, local news sources and major international newspapers.

31. There is also no indication that the applicant would be of interest to the current government, or authorities for any reason.

32. I do not accept that the applicant would be of interest to individuals in the former government for any reason, and I do not accept that he would be of interest to the current authorities for any reason. Accordingly, I do not accept that he would face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from the Fijian authorities for his political views or for any other reason.

    Other matters

33. In terms of other difficulties in Fiji, the applicant said that there was hardship in Fiji during the leadership of the former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama. He also referred to facing hardship during the Covid-19 lockdowns in Australia. The applicant did not elaborate further on these claims, other than to say that movement was restricted, and international travel was restricted during the time of the former Bainimarama government. These restrictions also occurred during the Covid lockdowns in Australia. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or real risk of significant harm, in the future because of Covid lockdowns in Australia during 2020-2021. I also do not accept that he would face serious or significant harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Fiji because of the previous situation in Fiji under the former Bainimarama government. As noted above, the government has changed, and the applicant agreed with the country information that the political situation in Fiji had improved.

    Conclusion

1. I do not accept that the applicant has ever been arrested, beaten or involved with the police for any reason. I do not accept that he is of interest to the current government, authorities or people involved in the former government. The applicant said that if he returns to Fiji, he would return to his village, (which is where his siblings are involved in farming), and live with his daughter, and not return to [City 1]. The applicant did not raise other concerns or fears in relation to returning to Fiji. He indicated that he wouldn’t return to [City 1] because of how the people would see him, given previous incidents. Given I have not accepted that the claimed incidents involving the police occurred, I do not accept that he faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in relation to how people within Fiji would perceive him in relation to the claimed events.

2. Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm in Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for any reason.

3. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

4. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

5. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

   Decision

6. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   Bryn Butler
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACT FROM MIGRATION ACT 1958

   5 (1) Interpretation

   …

   cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

   (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

   (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

   but does not include an act or omission:

   (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …

   degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

   (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …

   torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

   (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

   (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

   (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

   (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

   (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

   but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …

   receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

   (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

   (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

   …

   5H    Meaning of refugee

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

   (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

   (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

   Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

   …

   5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

   (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

   (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

   (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

   (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

   (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

   5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

   (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

   (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

   (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

   (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

   where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

   Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

   5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

   (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

   (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

   (c)     any of the following apply:

   (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

   (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

   (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

   (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

   5LA Effective protection measures

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

   (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)     the person can access the protection; and

   (b)     the protection is durable; and

   (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

   …

   36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

   …

   (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

   (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

   (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

   (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

   (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

   (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

   (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

   (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

   (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

   (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

   (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

   (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

   …

   
   

International Policy), 14 February 2023.

behind Fiji’s coup culture’, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 1 February 2023.