2317858 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a protection visa decision. The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a PALM program visa, sought a protection visa on the basis that he feared returning to Fiji due to a lack of future employment opportunities, the cost of living, and the inability to support his family. The delegate had refused the application, finding that the applicant's claims did not relate to any of the reasons specified in s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that there was no indication of harm on convention grounds. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Fiji. The applicant's claims centred on economic hardship and the difficulty of finding employment in Fiji, which he argued would have a detrimental mental impact. He also highlighted his work history in Australia and his desire to continue supporting his parents and siblings. The Tribunal was required to assess these claims against the relevant provisions of the Migration Act, including s 36(2)(aa) concerning complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that Australia did not owe protection obligations to the applicant. The Tribunal found that the applicant's concerns regarding the cost of living and employment prospects in Fiji did not constitute grounds for protection under s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that there were no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon return to Fiji, as there was no identified perpetrator intending to inflict the required level of harm. The Tribunal's reasoning was informed by country information and the specific circumstances of the applicant's claims.