2403090 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Fiji, sought a protection visa, claiming he left his home country due to economic hardship and rising criminality, and feared returning due to economic harm and the prevalence of drugs in his village. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. The decision was made by Sue Zelinka, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of economic hardship, the rising cost of living, increased criminality, and the presence of drugs in his village, including his brother's drug possession charge.

The Tribunal reasoned that a poor economic outlook alone did not constitute serious harm under the Act. While acknowledging the applicant's desire to provide for his family and his efforts to pay for his sibling's education, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not sought employment outside his family farm and had not acquired new employment skills in Australia. Regarding the drug issue, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not demonstrated he would be harmed by the presence of drugs in his community, nor had he been in trouble with authorities. The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and the relevant guidelines, concluding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Fiji.

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