2401816 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming he would be unable to obtain employment upon his return to Fiji and feared harm in the form of witchcraft. The delegate of the Department of Home Affairs refused the application, finding that the applicant's claims of economic hardship did not fall within the grounds for protection under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that there was no other information suggesting he would face harm for one of the prescribed reasons. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee or that he would suffer significant harm if returned to Fiji.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2) of the Act, specifically whether he was a refugee as defined in s 5H(1) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or whether he qualified for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Fiji. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the substance of his claims in light of the evidence and relevant legislative provisions.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's passport and his oral evidence, finding him to be a Fijian national. It noted that a decision-maker is not required to accept all allegations uncritically and must assess claims against independent evidence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of economic hardship due to an inability to find employment did not constitute "significant harm" as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, nor did they amount to persecution for the reasons outlined in s 5J(1)(a). The Tribunal also considered the possibility of relocation within Fiji, which was not ruled out by the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that he did not satisfy the criteria under s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.