2402488 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, sought a protection visa after his working visa was accidentally cancelled. He claimed he could not return to Fiji due to economic hardship, lack of employment opportunities, and the inability of Fijian authorities to provide assistance. The applicant's primary motivation for remaining in Australia was to financially support his family in Fiji, sending approximately $1000 AUD per week. He had previously worked in Australia under the Pacific Labour Scheme and subsequently as an [occupation 3]. The decision was made by Noelle Hossen, a Member of the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. The Tribunal also considered the definitions of "significant harm," "refugee," and "well-founded fear of persecution" as outlined in the Act and relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the applicant's Fijian nationality and assessed his claims against Fiji as the receiving country. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a), as there was no evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution based on the reasons outlined in section 5J of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The applicant's stated inability to find adequate employment and support his family in Fiji, while acknowledged as a significant personal hardship, did not amount to a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined by the Act, such as threats to life, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Tribunal noted that the economic difficulties described were faced by the population generally and did not constitute a personal risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.