2402501 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to an applicant from Fiji. The applicant claimed to fear harm due to his political opinion as a supporter of Bainimarama and the Fiji First Party, and also alleged fears related to his iTaukei ethnicity and Assemblies of God (AOG) church affiliation. The applicant contended that he faced harm from people in his home village, stemming from political tensions and a perceived nationalist mindset among the majority iTaukei population, particularly those affiliated with the Methodist Church.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, race, or religion, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Fiji. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the alleged harm, individually or cumulatively, would amount to serious harm as defined by the Migration Act 1958, and whether effective protection measures were available in Fiji. The court also had to consider its jurisdiction in relation to a second application filed by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant's claims, even when considered cumulatively, did not establish a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm in Fiji. The court noted that while the applicant expressed fears of harm from individuals in his village due to his political stance, he also indicated that the police would offer protection, albeit not 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant could potentially relocate within Fiji to an area where he would not face such risks, and that the alleged risks were not faced by the population generally but were more personal. Regarding the second application, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction as the delegate's decision had already been reviewed by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. In relation to the second application, the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction.