2318502 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a Fijian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Fiji due to difficulties in finding employment, the high cost of living, and the perceived greater opportunities in Australia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that removal to Fiji would expose the applicant to a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor*, *Nagalingam v MILGEA*, and *Prasad v MIEA*, which affirm that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient detail to satisfy the statutory elements of their claim. The Tribunal noted that while the concept of onus of proof is not strictly applicable in administrative inquiries, the applicant must supply the relevant facts. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal, preventing further questioning and clarification of their claims.

Based on the evidence before it, including passport details confirming Fijian nationality, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims regarding employment and cost of living lacked the necessary detail to establish a link to the refugee definition. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.