2404247 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Fiji, claimed to fear harm from relatives of his former partner upon return to Fiji. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa).

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the legislative criteria for protection visas. Section 5H(1)(a) defines a refugee as a person outside their country of nationality who has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Section 5J outlines the requirements for a well-founded fear, including a real chance of persecution and the availability of effective protection measures in the receiving country. The court also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided inconsistent claims and lacked supporting evidence. While the applicant stated his written claims, prepared with legal assistance, were true, he did not offer further evidence or clarification at the hearing. The Tribunal referred to country information indicating that adequate police protection was available in Fiji. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Fiji.

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