2526203 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1778

2526203 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1778 (31 July 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Mr John Vevers (MARN: 1067816)
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2526203
Tribunal:General Member M Simmons
Date:31 July 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 31 July 2025 at 11:44am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – targeted by corrupt police and political figures due to father’s government connection – mental health – child died – cultural stigmas surrounding mental illness and treatment – fears discrimination, shame, community exclusion, and emotional or verbal abuse – current treatment plan can continue – bereavement is not stigmatised – self-reported information later disclosed as not true – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 351, 369, 417, 499, 501
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 May 2025 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant, who claims to be a national of Fiji, applied for the visa on 8 May 2025.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Partner A], who is the applicant's partner. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No 84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Protection claims
The applicant’s current representative assisted him to prepare the visa application. The 8 May 2025 visa application sets out the following details on why the applicant left Fiji and does not wish to return there:
·THE APPLICANT GREW UP IN FIJI DURING NUMEROUS MILITARY COUPS, THE MOST RECENT IN 2006. DURING THIS TIME, THE APPLICATION WAS SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND VERY LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY WITH A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. THE APPLICANT GREW UP WITH MINIMAL FAMILY SUPPORT FROM A YOUNG AGE, AND EXPERIENCED PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING IMPACTS, WHICH WERE EXACERBATED BY THE MILITARY COUP. WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRAVEL TO AUSTRALIA IN NOVEMBER 2016 ON A SPORTS VISA, THE APPLICANT USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE THE HARDSHIPS FACED IN THE COMMUNITY.
·Did this applicant experience harm in that country or those countries? YES. WHILST RESIDING IN FIJI, THE APPLICANT WAS SUBJECTED TO OPPRESSION AND SUPPRESSION OF HIS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. SUCH ACTS IMPACTED THE APPLICANT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.
·Did this applicant seek help within the country or those countries after the harm? NO. THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES. HE WITNESSED INDIVIDUALS BEING PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HARMED FOR SEEKING HELP OR GOING ABOUT THEIR DAILY BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY FROM A VERY YOUNG AGE. AT THE TIME, THERE WERE NO AVENUES TO SEEK ANY QUALITY TO MODERATE LEVEL OF HEALTH CARE. MEN WERE EXPECTED TO ABIDE BY SOCIETAL EXPECTATIONS AND NOT SEEK WESTERN MEDICINE HELP, AND WITH HIS LIMITED EARLY FAMILY SUPPORT, HE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN A SAFE MANNER. AT THE TIME, AND CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, A STIGMA ATTACHED TO MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IN INDIVIDUALS AND TO BE DIAGNOSED WITH ANY SUCH AILMENT WOULD RESULT IN OSTRACISATION, POSSIBLE PERSECUTION AND DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
·THE ISSUES ENCOUNTERED BY THE APPLICANT WERE / ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT FIJI. GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF THE COUNTRY, RELOCATION INTERNALLY TO A SAFER LOCATION - AND ACCESSING SORELY NEEDED HEALTHCARE - IS NOT AN OPTION.
·IN RECENT YEARS, THE APPLICANT HAS EXPERIENCED FURTHER PERSONAL GRIEF, WITH THE LOSS OF HIS [child] UNEXPECTEDLY. THIS, COUPLED WITH A NEW SUPPORTIVE PARTNER WHOM HE TRUSTS TO DISCUSS SENSITIVE MATTERS, HAS BROUGHT OUT SIGNIFICANT REPRESSED EMOTIONS, AND HE HAS NOW BEEN FORMALLY DIAGNOSED WITH PTSD AND COMPLEX BEREAVEMENT DISORDER. THE INDIVIDUAL HAS JUST COMMENCED TREATMENT IN AUSTRALIA AND HAS A MINIMUM 12-MONTH PLAN FOR QUALITY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE. SHOULD HE RETURN NOW, HE WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY HIS FAMILY AND THE FIJIAN COMMUNITY AS A MALE DISCLOSING MENTAL HEALTH, AND WILL BE UNABLE TO ACCESS QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND TREATMENT. THIS WILL BE FURTHER COMPROMISED BY LEAVING HIS AUSTRALIAN FAMILY UNIT BEHIND, A STRONG SUPPORT NETWORK IN ADDRESSING HIS HEALTH. HIS MENTAL HEALTH WILL CONTINUE TO FURTHER DECLINE AND WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO HIS DEATH.
·Does this applicant think they will be harmed or mistreated if they return to that country or countries? YES. SHOULD THE APPLICANT RETURN NOW - GIVEN THE DECLINE IN HIS MENTAL HEALTH OF LATE - IT IS LIKELY HE WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE FIJIAN COMMUNITY (DUE TO HIS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES), AND BE UNABLE TO ACCESS QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND TREATMENT. SHOULD THE ABOVE OCCUR, THE MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE APPLICANT WILL FURTHER DETERIORATE AND WILL, ULTIMATELY, EVENTUATE IN HIS DEATH.
·Does this applicant think the authorities of that country or those countries can and will protect this applicant if they go back? NO. THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES IN FIJI - INCLUDING THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH - DO NOT PROVIDE QUALITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES; SHOULD THE APPLICANT RETURN TO FIJI NOW, HE WILL BE OSTRACISED FROM THE FIJIAN COMMUNITY GIVEN HIS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, FURTHER COMPOUNDING HIS FEARS OF RETURNING TO FIJI.
·Does this applicant think they would be able to relocate within that country or those countries to an area where they would not be harmed? NO. THE ISSUES ENCOUNTERED BY THE APPLICANT WERE / ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT FIJI. GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF THE COUNTRY, RELOCATION INTERNALLY TO A SAFER LOCATION - AND ACCESSING SORELY NEEDED HEALTHCARE - IS NOT AN OPTION.
Also submitted with the visa application were five articles comprising a blog post, opinion piece and two media articles.[1]
[1] The Borgen Project, ‘Blog – Latest News, Mental health in Fiji’, 30 March 2023; Radio New Zealand, ‘Shortage of beds, nurses – ‘Fiji’s only mental health facility struggling to cope’, 10 September 2024; New Zealand Herald, Emmaline Pickering-Martin, ‘Opinion: Stigma attached to poor mental health in Fiji is part of an ongoing colonial hangover’, 6 October 2022; Fiji Global News, ‘Mental Health Crisis: Where Do They Go After Treatment?, 12 Jan 2025; Fiji Sun, ‘Fiji Lacks Mental Health Experts’, 1 May 2011.
Prior to the hearing, I directed the applicant to provide a detailed statement of claims,[2] and clear particulars regarding the mental health claims.[3] The direction also required the applicant to provide any information about the situation in Fiji he wishes to rely on, including identifying which parts of that information is relevant and why, and to provide any witness statements he wishes to rely on.
[2] The direction required that the statement contain the following details: (a) Set out your protection claims, explaining why you believe that you may be harmed upon return to your home country and need Australia to grant you protection; (b) Set out details of events and experiences in the past that are relevant to the risk of you being harmed upon return to your home country. These events and experiences may include things that have happened to you, your family members or other people in your home country before or after you arrived in Australia; (c) Explain whether the risk of harm you faced when you left your home country remains the same now, or may have changed since then, and why; (d) Identify any new claims and explain why these claims were not previously provided to the Department; (e) Explain whether any state authority in your home country (or another party or organisation that controls your home country) is willing and able to protect you, and if not explain why; (f) Explain whether you would be able to relocate to a different area within your home country where you would not face serious or significant harm, and if not explain why.
[3] Namely: (a) What your medical diagnosis is, when you were formally diagnosed and by whom, accompanied by supporting medical evidence; (b)Your current treatment needs, and expected treatment needs in the foreseeable future, accompanied by supporting medical evidence; (c) The availability of the medical treatment you will require in Fiji, with supporting evidence; (d) Why you believe Australia has protection obligations to you arising for your mental health conditions, including how you may face a future chance of serious harm in Fiji from the conduct of another person or persons for this reason, and/or how you may face a future risk of significant harm in Fiji for this reason by an intentional act or omission.
In reply, on 24 June 2025, the applicant provided a further statement signed 23 June 2025, a witness statement from his partner [Partner A], and legal submissions from his representative. Also provided were supporting documents comprising: a psychological assessment: a letter from a psychologist; articles and media reporting on the mental health situation in Fiji; and reporting on previous coups in Fiji.[4]
[4] The supporting material was listed as being: Attachment A: Psychologist Assessment report, provided by [Psychology service 1]; Attachment B: Mr [A], [Psychology service 2], letter to Local Magistrates Court; Attachment C: Article from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, highlighting mental health implications in Fiji; Attachment D: News Article from Fiji Sun: EDITORIAL: Mental Health Service Needs More Recognition; Attachment E: the WHO proMIND framework; Attachment F: Mental Health Atlas 2020 Fiji. Lack of treating professionals available in the Fijian country; Attachment G: Itaukei Torture from Coups – Fijian Sun News Article; Attachment H: Fijian Times news article on the 2000 coup.
The 23 June 2025 statement relevantly provides:
·The applicant fears serious harm or even death were he to return to Fiji.
·He was previously targeted by corrupt police and political figures associated with his late father’s role in the Fijian government. Despite changes in government, the same networks of influence and intimidation remain. If returned, his presence in Fiji could also place his family and particularly his children at risk.
·He also suffers from serious, ongoing mental health conditions caused by past trauma, and believes that in Fiji mental health support is not realistically available.
·The applicant was born in [year] and raised in Suva, mostly by his maternal grandfather and aunty. His father, now deceased, was not listed on his birth certificate for several reasons. His standing in the community was not desirable and brought shame to the applicant’s family, specifically, he worked in the Fijian government [and former] political party until his death. He was involved in the political situations and the coups in [years].
·As a young man growing up, the applicant, his family and friends were regularly targeted by corrupt police and government officials. He was routinely assaulted for no reason other than by association due to family or local community connections. He has scars and incurred significant broken bones including in [Body part 1] (he submitted two [related] photos) and [Body part 2] has been broken several times. He did not receive medical support for these injuries. He continues to have significant [Body part 3] pain and regular nightmares.
·Many of his childhood friends have now died from suicide or unexplained deaths and the ones who are alive, carry the same burdens and scars.
·He moved to Australia to build a safer life and provide for his family. While here, he lost his [child] to illness quite suddenly in traumatic circumstances, watching [his/her] final moments and passing on a video call.
·Shortly after [his/her] passing, he was cut off from his children by his now former wife. He fell into depression and emotional shutdown. While he knew his visa had expired, he did not know what to do or who to turn to for assistance. The thought of returning to Fiji caused him significant angst. He now calls Australia home, and he has a strong affinity with being in this country and a strong desire to continue his life here, especially now he has a new partner who is supportive and understanding.
·It is claimed the individuals who harmed the applicant or were connected to his abuse remain active and influential in the community, even if they are no longer publicly associated with government positions. Nothing has really changed at the grassroots level, the power dynamics, intimidation, and community structures still operate as they did before.
·His fears remain the same, and are perhaps stronger now he has been away for so long. As the eldest male in his family, he would be seen as responsible and visible, and without his grandfather and father to buffer attention, he believes he would quickly become a target for unresolved political or personal vendettas.
·He fears his children would be identified and harmed through association, especially if the applicant’s return brought unwanted attention. His children are now in a shared cultural custody arrangement, mostly living with the applicant’s mother and broader family members. They have no knowledge of the former political situations and the assaults.
·The applicant suffers significant diagnosed mental health conditions, and for the first time in his life, has been open to getting help here in Australia. He wants to continue his treatment over the coming years here in Australia. Returning to Fiji would strip that away, and he fears he would not survive the emotional or physical consequences. The applicant respectfully asks that real and ongoing threat to his safety and psychological wellbeing, were he forced to return to Fiji, be recognised.
·The applicant felt unable to provide these new details earlier for a few reasons. The main one is trauma, as it is only recently in his relationship he feels he can trust someone to talk about his past. It is through this relationship that he has sought professional medical help. He is fearful of repercussions in Fiji from what he is disclosing now to government officials. Due to his upbringing around corrupt government bodies, he finds it difficult to trust anyone in any official capacity. It is also very hard being in Immigration Detention at present. Additionally, his medical reports were very confronting for him. He didn’t want to disclose them to anyone as he felt ashamed of his behaviours, but also now realises it was the environment he was brought up in, and the trauma associated with it.
·He fears for his life in Fiji, due to being targeted and not being able to continue mental health treatment. The same government officials currently in power, they just go under different names and organisations. He considers it is only a matter of time until he would die, either due to his mental health status or from an ‘accident’ in his country.
·The nature of Pasifika society is such that privacy and anonymity are nearly impossible, and information about individuals spreads quickly across church groups and family lines.
·He does not believe that any state authority or government-linked body in Fiji could protect him. The current government structure still operates under the influence of many former coup supporters or their allies, and corruption is widespread.
·Internal relocation within Fiji is neither safe nor culturally viable. Fiji is a small island nation with deeply interconnected communities, particularly among Pasifika and Indigenous populations.
·Further, due to stigma surrounding mental health, he has no faith that confidentiality will be maintained and respected and retaliation is common in close-knit communities. He would be isolated from his family and disowned, as seeking help for what had occurred will be seen as weak. His ongoing mental health challenges make it extremely difficult to live independently or establish support in an unfamiliar community. His wellbeing will further deteriorate.

In respect of the applicant’s mental health, 23 June 2025 statement provides:
·In early 2025, after encouragement from [Partner A] and following involvement in a legal matter that was ultimately resolved without conviction, I underwent a formal psychological assessment. I was assessed on 15 January and 21 March 2025 by Ms [A], a registered Clinical Psychologist at [Psychology service 1]. Ms [A] formally diagnosed me with the following:
- Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), linked to childhood trauma.
- Complex Bereavement Disorder, stemming from the loss of my [child].
·Ongoing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and emotional dysregulation, exacerbated by unresolved trauma and I now know, exacerbated by ongoing detention. Her professional opinion and full diagnostic report are available in Attachment A.
·Following her recommendations and the outcome of my legal matter (which resulted in no conviction and no community corrections order under the Mental Health Act), I was placed under the care of a treating psychologist to begin long-term therapy. Importantly, I sought a clinician who understood Pasifika cultural norms and the unique challenges faced by Fijian men in seeking help without any fear of retribution, I commenced meeting with him prior to my Court ordered legal matters.
·I am now receiving ongoing treatment from Mr [A], a Clinical Psychologist at [Psychology service 2], who comes from a Pasifika background and has provided a safe and trusting environment for me. I see Mr [A] every 2–3 weeks, and sessions are currently conducted via video call, as I am in [Detention Centre 1]. Though this setting is not ideal due to lack of privacy, open communal living, and absence of on-site support following sessions. Mr [A] and I both agree that in-person therapy would be more effective, especially for trauma processing and long-term recovery.
·The Magistrate’s Court also acknowledged the legitimacy of my mental health challenges and formally supported my release into Mr [A’s] care for a minimum of 12 months, with a treatment plan guided initially by Ms [A’s] findings and tailored by Mr [A] as treatment progresses.
·This has been the first time in my life that I have accessed professional mental health support, and while it remains deeply difficult, I am committed to continuing treatment and recovery. My mental health care has given me hope, but I know this progress is fragile and depends on being in an environment where safety, trust, and continuity of care are possible, something I cannot access if returned to Fiji.
·In Fijian culture, seeking mental health treatment is still associated with shame and weakness. I have not disclosed my treatment to my family or community, as doing so would likely result in ostracisation, ridicule, and social exclusion. This cultural barrier is one of many reasons why I could not safely continue my treatment in Fiji.
In response to the direction to outline his current treatment needs, and expected treatment needs in the foreseeable future, the applicant provided:
·Section 14 Mental Health Order by [Magistrates Court 1], from [May] 2025 for a minimum period of 12 months under the direct care of treating psychologist, Mr [A]. Refer Attachment B his letter to the Court stating he will take responsibility for my care. It is possible that I may need a longer treatment plan. I will continue to pay for these sessions privately at $200 per session with the support of my partner.
·Appointment of a General Practitioner to work alongside my treating psychologist and referrals for surgery.
·Future surgery on my [Body part 1 to] reduce the pain. I have not yet been assessed for this surgery, but you can visibly see the impact in person (photos below).
·Assessment for any treatment on [Body part 3], which may be remediation.
In response to the direction to outline the availability of his medical treatment in Fiji, and he believes Australia owes protection obligations arising for his mental health conditions, the applicant stated:
·While mental health services technically exist in Fiji, access to appropriate, confidential, and stigma-free mental health care remains severely limited, particularly for men. As an elder in my family, cultural norms and stigma surrounding mental illness create a significant barrier to seeking psychological support.
·Mental health issues are often viewed as a personal weakness or spiritual failing in Fijian society, particularly in traditional and religious communities. This deep stigma, combined with a lack of qualified mental health professionals and facilities, means that meaningful, ongoing treatment is not realistically available or accessible to me in Fiji. I also fear that any attempt to seek help may become known in the community, resulting in ostracisation and further psychological distress. Supporting evidence from sources make these findings clear (refer Attachments C through H), although Fiji has made some strides in policy, actual access remains extremely limited, with limited funding, training,
·Due to cultural stigmas, mental illness in Fiji is often met with discrimination. As someone who has sought mental health treatment in Australia, I am very aware that disclosing this in Fiji would likely lead to shame, community exclusion, and emotional or verbal abuse from within my own family or village. Additionally, there is a genuine risk of this information being used by corrupt or politically motivated individuals to further isolate, intimidate, or retaliate against me and due to this, I simply would not seek the help in Fiji that I need. I know I will become further depressed and self-harm will occur.
·Furthermore, my partner provides a high degree of support here in Australia. She is [an Occupation 1] with extensive ties to Australia, and this degree of support will be reduced if I return to Fiji, as her availability to travel will be limited to every few months. Australia has significantly better, and more psychologists and treating professionals available compared to Fiji.
oAustralia had approximately 31,618 practicing psychologists in 2020. According to the 2017 Mental Health Atlas, this equates to 103.04 psychologists per 100,000 people.
oIn contrast, Fiji had only 0.56 psychologists per 100,000 population (or roughly 0.6/100k) according to WHO data. This matches Fiji's Mental Health Atlas profile, which cites a profoundly limited workforce capacity.
·For these reasons, I respectfully submit that returning to Fiji would expose me to significant and a real risk of due to my mental health condition, and I therefore seek Australia’s protection under its humanitarian obligations.
Also provided was material in support of the claimed de facto relationship between the applicant and [Partner A]. The submission identifies this as being relevant to the request for Ministerial Intervention, which is addressed below.
The applicant and I discussed his past experiences and future fears in Fiji during the hearing. I also spoke with the applicant’s partner and afforded her the opportunity to provide information in support of the visa application, in addition to her written statement. This oral evidence, to the extent it informs my reasoning, is set out below.
Following the hearing I afforded the applicant the opportunity to provide any further material he wished to rely on. I also explained to the applicant’s representative that information regarding the applicant’s mental health treatment needs, the availability of such treatment in Fiji, and how society reacts to persons with conditions such as the applicant’s, would be relevant. On 7 July 2025 the applicant’s representative provided a further submission regarding the Fijian mental health system.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm were he to return to Fiji. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
2025 legal proceeding
The applicant has provided details regarding a proceeding to which he was party, in which it is stated no conviction was recorded and community corrections orders were made under the Mental Health Act2015 (ACT). I consider those details are of no relevance in resolving the dispositive issues in this review, and has no bearing on my assessment.
Identity and receiving country
Before me are the biodata pages of a Fijian passport. This document contains a photo which resembles the applicant and details that reflect his claimed identity. I have no concerns as to the authenticity of this document.
In the hearing the applicant seemed to converse fluently in the native Fijian language and demonstrated familiarity with Fiji. I accept that the applicant is who he claims to be, and that he is a national of Fiji. Fiji is the receiving country for the purpose of this assessment
Applicant’s background
During our discussion the applicant told me that while in Fiji, he always lived in [Suburb 1], Suva. He later added that after he completed his schooling, he would divide his time between [Suburb 1] and [Village 1] on [Island 1], which is his mother’s ancestral village. In [Village 1] he would grow kava.
The applicant travelled to Australia in November 2016 to play [Sport 1], having been selected on a competitive basis. He also previously travelled to [Country 1] for a week in 2006 to play [Sport 1]. The travel to [Country 1] is not mentioned in the visa application, despite the form requesting details of all travel undertaken in the last 30 years. He told me he had no problems departing Fiji at [Airport 1] on either occasion.
The applicant remained in Australia, along with ‘70 to 80%’ of his [Sport 1] team mates, following the expiration of his visa in February 2017. He continues to live with some of his team mates, who he described as close friends he regards as family, who he has known his entire life, and who are also from [Suburb 1]. He suggested that growing up they also had problems with the Fijian military. He indicated that he thinks they may have applied for protection visas, they all have their own reasons for staying in Australia, but he has never asked the others about their problems. Given their close and enduring nature of their friendship I asked why he would not ask his friends about their problems in Fiji. Later in our discussion, he suggested that they were picked up by the authorities for [criminal charges].
While in Australia the applicant has worked [as an Occupation 2] at various locations across different states for around four years.
The applicant mentioned his mother, [siblings] and his children reside together in Fiji in a property the family owns. His mother is a retired [Occupation 3] who previously [worked] in [Country 2] and [Country 3]. [One sibling] works at [Workplace 1] as [an Occupation 4]. He met his current partner in late 2024.
The applicant’s [children] reside with his mother. One of his [children] passed away while he was in Australia, which was profoundly upsetting for him.
Protection visa application
The applicant waited five more years after arriving in Australia, and well after the expiration of his temporary visitor visa, to apply for a protection visa. He indicated during this time he did not know where to apply or what to do. Then his [child] passed away in 2017 in Fiji, which I acknowledge would have been extremely difficult for him.
I noted that, on the applicant’s own evidence, in the following years he lived in various locations, was able to secure a variety of different jobs, and had a social network in Australia that assisted him with these matters. In light of this, I asked the applicant why he was not able to seek assistance from a migration professional in relation to his visa status at an earlier time. He suggested that he was concentrating on working and he did not know if he had any chance to get a visa. He also suggested he did not have money to pay for a lawyer, despite his evidence being that he was employed for the entirety of his time in Australia.
I expressed that the delay of five years in applying for protection was not, on its face, suggestive of him sincerely fearing harm on return to Fiji during that period. He replied that he did not apply because he had no one to give him advice, until he met his current partner. Noting the applicant told me he holds an ABN and various safety accreditations required for his work, which suggests he has engaged with the Australian authorities, I asked why he could not have contacted the Department of Home Affairs himself. He indicated he was fearful that doing so may lead to him being detained, and that he did not apply for the ABN himself.
Harm in Fiji
I have a number of concerns about the applicant’s claims regarding mistreatment he claims he and his family have been subject to at the hand of the Fijian authorities. His evidence on this matter has shifted and evolved over time, and is afflicted by numerous significant inconsistencies that cause me to doubt whether he is recounting actual lived experiences.
The applicant told me that the people from whom he fears harm in Fiji are his father’s enemies. When asked to explain who these people are, after a pause he suggested they are ‘the government, the people behind the scene, people the media doesn’t know’.
The applicant told me that from primary school age he was mistreated by the Fijian police and military. In his teenage years, from around [age] – ‘as soon as we started having moustache’, he was regularly beaten by the authorities ‘for no reason at all’. Later, those mistreating him referred to his father and suggested that was why they were targeting him.
I noted that the May 2025 visa application makes no reference to the applicant ever having been previously physically harmed while in Fiji, despite stating he ‘witnessed individuals being physically and mentally harmed’. His application suggests that he experienced poor psychological wellbeing due to a suppression of rights, but makes no mention of any routine physical mistreatment as is now claimed. The application was prepared with assistance from his current representative, less than two months before the hearing. In reply the applicant indicated that due to his experience of corruption in Fiji, he did not trust the Australian authorities to make such a disclosure, and it was only following assurances from his partner that he decided to share this information in the hearing. I noted he had been with his partner for more than nine months before the visa application was lodged, and he referenced in the application the trust and support he derives from her, and in that context queried why those discussions would not have occurred prior to the visa application being submitted. He suggested he ‘never talks about anything emotional’. Asked to explain what had occurred between the submission of the application on 8 May 2025 and the hearing on 1 July 2025 where he now felt able to disclose the physical mistreatment, he indicated that ‘it needs to come out, what was done to me’ and noted he was concerned about being returned to Fiji.
I reiterated that I was concerned, given he has professional guidance, that he would fail to mention the claimed past instances of harm in his visa application. He replied that ‘[the representative] did not tell me to talk about that, no one even asked’.
I also noted that in Ms [A’s] psychologist report dated 7 April 2025 the applicant told her he left Fiji to earn money, and he did not report to her having any problems there or ever having been mistreated there. He replied: ‘you think I would talk to her about these things, I would not talk to psychologist about these things’. I noted that the psychologist report was before the Tribunal because he had submitted it as evidence via his representative. He indicated that the psychologist did not ask him whether he was ever harmed or had problems in Fiji. Considering the detail in that report about the applicant’s life, including while resident in Fiji, I had difficulty accepting this assertion.
Both these narratives are different to the 23 June 2025 statement, which relevantly contends that as young man, the applicant, his family and friends were regularly targeted by the authorities, including being ‘routinely assaulted, picked up in their vehicles for no reason other than by association due to family or local community connections’.
The applicant also indicated his [sibling] continues to have problems at present due to their father. He added that as recently as February 2025, his [sibling] was taken by the military, was beaten up, and then released. The applicant suggested that on this occasion his [sibling] was beaten due to [his/her] association with the applicant. There was no mention of this incident in the visa application or the Tribunal submissions, despite it only occurring a few months prior to the preparation of those documents.
In the visa application the applicant described the people who harmed him as still being powerful, influential and well connected at present. He told me that he does not know their names, but he recognises their faces. I asked how he knew they were still powerful and influential if he did not know their names. He replied: ‘they are still there’. Noting he had been in Australia for six years, I enquired how he knew this. The applicant suggested his [sibling] told him. Noting the applicant’s father has now passed away, I asked why they would continue to pursue him. He replied that he does not know.
The applicant has obtained two passports in Fiji and departed the country on two separate occasions without incident. Given he claims the army were pursuing him from a young age, I asked how he was able to do this without coming to the attention of the authorities. He indicated it was only ‘normal military thugs’ who were after him.
I asked why, if these problems had been occurring since primary school, he would return to danger in Fiji following his 2006 trip to [Country 1]. He suggested he had to return to Fiji in order to attend a subsequent planned [Sport 1] trip in [Country 4] which did not eventuate. I asked why, if he feared for his life in Fiji, he would not remain in [Country 1], and the applicant replied that he wanted to go to [Country 4] to play [Sport 1]. I asked whether, for example, ensuring his safety by requesting in asylum in [Country 1] would have been more important than the [Sport 1] trip to [Country 4], but he reiterated he wanted to travel to [Country 4].
I note that the 23 June 2025 statement includes images which appear to show [Body part 1]. The applicant suggested verbally that [Body part 1 is] damaged from years of mistreatment by the Fijian authorities. As noted during the hearing, the applicant has a long history of playing [Sport 1] which could provide another possible explanation for any such ailments. I can accept the applicant may have some injuries to [Body part 1] but make no findings as to how these were inflicted.
I spoke with [Partner A] about her understanding of the applicant’s past problems in Fiji, noting that I had read her statement. She responded that he spoke of the passing of his [child] and the profound impact that had on him, and that he suggested he could not return to Fiji when his [child] passed away due to a fear for his safety. He described to [Partner A] being subject to beatings and being ‘picked up’. She also told the Tribunal that she travelled to Fiji to meet the applicant’s family. She expressed concern for his wellbeing and his future treatment were he to return to Fiji.
Applicant’s Father
Early in our discussion, the applicant indicated that his father, whose name is [Mr B], was [an Occupation 5] who was educated at [University 1]. The applicant told me that he had a secret relationship with his father, meeting with him without informing his mother. He told me that his father passed away while he was in Australia. Subsequently he told me that his father had ‘stayed with his misses in his own gated community’. He added that his father was [an Occupation 5], but before this his father went to prison for six years for [Criminal offence 1]. After this he became [an Occupation 6], then [an Occupation 5] studying at [University 1]. The applicant has provided no corroborative material in support of any of these claims.

Ms [A’s] 7 April 2025 report states that the applicant reported that his ‘father is unknown, and he had already left the relationship with his mother prior to his birth’. When I put this to him for his comment he responded, ‘yes, I said that’. Asked to explain this information, he said that he grew up on his mother’s side. I noted that his oral evidence to the Tribunal, under oath, was that he knew his father and had a relationship with him. He suggested his father was ‘unknown to my family’.
In contrast, the visa application contains no details about the applicant’s father at all. It does not suggest that any of the applicant’s problems with the Fijian authorities are connected to his father. When asked about this, he replied he did not talk about his father because this is his secret. Given he disclosed other sensitive matters in the application, including in relation to his mental health and the passing of his [child], and that he indicated due to support from his partner he feels able to share difficult and repressed memories, I expressed that failing to indicate his problems in Fiji were related to his father, as he now claimed, raises serious doubt as to the veracity of those claims. I also noted that the statement provided by the applicant’s partner prior to the hearing makes no mention of the applicant’s problems with the Fijian authorities being related to his father. He suggested his partner is aware of this, nonetheless.
The applicant also did not suggest, as per his 23 June 2025 statement to the Tribunal, that his father was involved in the [years] coups until I prompted him, and even then providing shifting and unpersuasive responses. I asked him to explain how his father caused him problems, and he suggested whenever he was picked up by the authorities he was asked about his father repeatedly, but he does not know why that was. I put to the applicant that his statement to the Tribunal provided a different narrative, in which he wrote his father was a government [Occupation 5] who worked for [Prime Minister A], and that he continued working for [Prime Minister A] until his death, and that he was involved in the coups in [years]. The applicant replied: ‘he was in the government, he was in [Workplace 2], I can’t tie them up but for some reason I get picked up because of him’.
When asked why he did not mention his father’s involvement in the coups until I raised it with him, the applicant stated he was not involved in the coups, but he worked for [Prime Minister A]. I read to the applicant from his 23 June 2025 statement, submitted shortly prior to the hearing, in which he declared ‘my father was involved in the political situation and the coups in [years]’. I asked if this was correct or not, and the applicant replied ‘of course’. I noted he had just provided different details to the Tribunal. He did not respond.
I expressed that it was unclear to me, if his father was [an Occupation 5] assisting [Prime Minister A] who in turn controlled the government and the military, why the authorities would wish to pursue and harm the applicant. He responded that ‘these people are army thugs they drive around for no reason they pick up and beat up anyone for no reason’. I noted that was different to his numerous previous answers in which he suggested he was picked up and beaten by people because of his father, and not for ‘no reason’. He replied: ‘I don’t know what my father did’. I reiterated my concern remained that I was unclear why the applicant would be targeted by the [Prime Minister A]-controlled security apparatus when it is claimed his father worked with [Prime Minister A], to which the applicant replied it makes no sense and that the army would just pick anyone up off the streets.
Conclusions: Past harm, father’s profile
The applicant’s evidence, both in relation to his claimed past instances of harm in Fiji and his father, is not persuasive and I am not satisfied he is recounting actual experiences.
While the visa application was submitted only two months prior to the Tribunal hearing, and the applicant has had the benefit of representation throughout this process, there are a number of notable omissions and inconsistencies when comparing the details in his visa application to the written and oral evidence to the Tribunal. I do not consider, if the applicant had in fact been routinely harmed by the Fijian authorities from a young age as is now claimed, that this would be omitted from the visa application or the psychologist report. There is some tension between applicant’s explanations for this omission from the visa application, where he suggests both that his representative did not ask him about these matters and that he felt unsafe in making this disclosure to the Australian authorities. He seems to suggest both that he did not know to provide this information, and that he decided not to provide this information. Moreover, the applicant felt comfortable to disclose that he was harmed psychologically while in Fiji by stating in the visa application, that he was ‘subjected to oppression and suppression of his rights and freedoms. Such acts impacted the applicant's psychological health and wellbeing’.
I do not consider the applicant’s evidence regarding his decision to return to Fiji from [Country 1] in 2006, and to prioritise a possible future [Sport 1] trip to [Country 4] over avoiding harm in Fiji, his claim to sincerely fear harm there at that time. I also take into account the significant delay between the applicant entering Australia and him deciding to apply for a protection visa, which I do not consider is supportive of his claim to fear harm in Fiji during this period. I do not accept the applicant was ever previously harmed by the Fijian authorities, including the police or army. I reject those claims completely.
The applicant has also provided very different details in respect of his father in recent months, which I do not consider to be credible. In April 2025 he told his psychologist that he did not know his father and gave no suggestion at all of ever having had any problems with the Fijian authorities for any reason related to his father. While the May 2025 visa application, prepared with professional migration assistance, does not suggest any connection between the applicant’s father and his problems in Fiji, and does not even mention his father. In contrast the June 2025 statement to the Tribunal squarely asserts that it was his father’s profile which lead to the applicant being targeted for harm by the Fijian authorities throughout his life, without significant elaboration. When asked about his father during the hearing, the applicant provided various details for the first time regarding his identity, professional background and indicated he did have a relationship with him, albeit a secret one, up until his death. He also gave shifting evidence as to whether or not his father was involved in the [years] coup as he asserted in his statement a week before the hearing. He also could not explain why it was that his father’s work for the [Prime Minister A] government exposed the applicant and his family to adverse attention and harm from the same government.
Considering the claimed centrality of the applicant’s father to his asserted lifetime difficulties in Fiji, I do not regard his ambiguous, uncorroborated and at times inconsistent evidence regarding his father, including his relationship with the applicant and involvement with the [Prime Minister A] government, to be persuasive or reliable. I do not accept that the applicant’s father ever had any profile of interest with the Fijian authorities at any point in time, nor do I accept he impart any such profile upon the applicant or his family. I reject the applicant’s claims regarding his father and the problems he attributes to him in their entirety.
Mental health
The 7 April 2025 report of Ms [A], Psychologist diagnoses the applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) and major depressive disorder, or the differential diagnosis of complex bereavement disorder, linked to the death of his [child]. That report notes he was and is affected by a severe disturbance of mood. I accept that the applicant has received these diagnoses.
I note that much of Ms [A’s] report is based on self-reported information from the applicant. I am concerned that the information provided by the applicant under oath to the Tribunal differs markedly from the details he provided to Ms [A], notably in respect of his father and his role in his life. The applicant told her he did not know his father and that he was absent from his life, which is not what he told the Tribunal. This apparent preparedness to provide inaccurate information, whether to the Tribunal or Ms [A], causes me to doubt the reliability of the applicant’s evidence more broadly. While I accept Ms [A’s] diagnoses, I treat with caution the aspects of her report which reflect information reported to her by the applicant.
We discussed the applicant’s mental health situation and current treatment during the hearing. He told me he was diagnosed with PTSD and trauma. I asked him to explain the symptoms he experiences from those conditions, which he described as anger, frustration, and emotional outbursts. He explained that currently he is undergoing videocall counselling via a practitioner in [State 1], Mr [A], which he commenced a few weeks prior to the hearing. Mr [A] had provided a brief letter confirming he is currently providing therapy to the applicant, every two to three weeks by videocall. I accept that the applicant is undergoing this treatment.
I noted that the visa application states the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD and complex bereavement disorder following the passing of the applicant’s [child]. However the 23 June 2025 statement suggests Ms [A] diagnosed the applicant ‘complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), linked to childhood trauma’. Ms [A’s] report seemingly only identifies the death of the applicant’s [child] as being related to the onset of PTSD, and suggests that the reported problems of his childhood related to not knowing his father, which the applicant later indicated was inaccurate. The report specifically states that the applicant identified his difficulties and symptoms as beginning following the passing of his [child].
I emphasised to the applicant that I was not questioning the PTSD diagnosis itself, or that the applicant’s experience of his [child’s] passing would have been anything other than traumatic for him. But I wanted to understand why Ms [A’s] report makes no mention of any childhood trauma, or any experiences of violence or mistreatment while in Fiji. In reply, the applicant suggested he had a bad childhood without elaborating. Ms [A’s] report relevantly states that the told her he left Fiji to earn money, and there is nothing in her report on the applicant ever having been harmed while in Fiji. I do not accept the suggestion that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD linked to childhood trauma as is posited in the submissions to the Tribunal.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
I have not accepted that the applicant was ever previously harmed while in Fiji by the Fijian authorities. Nor have I accepted that the applicant’s father ever had any profile of interest with the Fijian authorities. As such, it follows that I do not accept that the applicant has a real chance of any harm, including treatment amounting to serious harm, for these reasons in the foreseeable future in Fiji.
Mental health
I have accepted the applicant has been diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder, or the differential diagnosis of complex bereavement disorder, linked to the death of his [child], as per Ms [A’s] report. I have accepted he is undergoing therapy with Mr [A].
I note that the applicant’s mental health difficulties, per Ms [A’s] report, began following the passing of his [child] in 2018. However following did not apply for a protection visa until around six years after this incident, and remained unlawfully present in Australia and liable to possible return to Fiji. His delay in applying for a protection visa is not, on its face, suggestive of him being fearful of returning to Fiji during this period including for any reason related to his mental health.
When asked about his future treatment needs, the applicant indicated he is happy that he is now talking and opening up. Noting that the applicant is currently only receiving treatment by videocall, I asked why he could not continue to receive this same treatment from Fiji in the future. He replied: ‘there is no money to do that’. I noted that his evidence was his partner was paying for his treatment, and that receipt for payment of Mr [A’s] fees had been provided to the Tribunal. When asked why that arrangement could not continue if he were in Fiji, he responded that ‘if I go to Fiji I will die, my neighbour just died’. I redirected him back to my question about his future mental health treatment needs, and he replied: ‘my mental health will come later, I will get hurt first before my mental health’.
I noted that the applicant had provided some quite general information on mental health services and stigma in Fiji. I put to the applicant and his representative that ‘mental health’ can encompass a variety of conditions and disorders each with varied symptoms. Noting that his particular diagnosis was for PTSD and major depressive disorder or bereavement disorder connected to his [child’s] death, I asked if he was suggesting he would be stigmatised in Fiji because he is still resolving his [child’s] passing. He replied that in his culture they don’t talk and they take their pain to the grave, particularly men, and that mental wellbeing is not a priority.
I raised with Mr Vevers that the general material provided on mental health care and stigma in Fiji does not seem to speak to the situation for persons in Fiji the particular conditions the applicant has been diagnosed with, or the treatment the applicant may require and its availability in Fiji. Given the breadth of the various diverse conditions which may be related to mental well-being, I suggested he may wish to consider providing more specific information following the hearing. I noted that, for example, persons who experience psychosis or delusions, may have different treatment needs and receive different social stigma as persons exhibiting symptoms like those identified by the applicant such as anger, frustration, and emotional outbursts. I also queried whether it was possible, for example, given awareness of the passing of the applicant’s [child], that his community would treat him with a degree of compassion rather than stigma in light of his ongoing struggles. Noting reporting on support for bereaved persons in Fijian can come from familial and tribal groups[5]. On this basis, Mr Vevers indicated he would like additional time to make more targeted submissions, which I agreed to.
[5] For instance, Vave notes the importance of “support of communal networks” following the passing of a loved one, in Vave, Ron. (2021). Indigenous Fijian funerals in Fiji and its influence and effects on Social and Ecological resilience, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, >
On 7 July 2025 Mr Vevers provided further submissions which concern the ‘mental health-related risks and systemic deficiencies in Fiji, particularly as they pertain to individuals suffering from mental health conditions’. Those submissions note there is an inadequate mental health workforce nationally, inferior access to care in regional areas, comments on there being one sole tertiary psychiatric facility in Fiji, which is overburdened, and notes that some people prefer to travel abroad for mental health care. Many of the listed external sources of information concern the prevalence of suicide in Fiji, while others comment on mental health support resources in Fiji. The submissions comment on the prevalence of suicide in Fiji, and suggest for individuals engaged with psychological services in Australia may risk relapse in the absence of proper care, returning to Fiji. They also suggest that in Fiji, religious and conservative social norms contribute to stigma around mental health conditions and treatment, and suggests that ‘a 2018 study by the Fiji National University found that over 60% of surveyed participants believed people with mental illness should be kept in institutions—a reflection of the enduring stigma’. These submissions do not explain the applicant’s future treatment needs, the availability of such treatment in Fiji, or how persons with the conditions the applicant has are treated in Fiji.
The applicant’s treatment plan from Ms [A], which is being implemented by Mr [A], only refers to him requiring consultations. It is agreed these will occur every two to three weeks for a minimum of 12 months, and so far have these been taking place by video call. The applicant attended an initial consultation with him [in] April 2025 and has since attended a total of 3 sessions. The applicant indicated [Partner A] is paying for these consultations. I am satisfied that this is the extent of the treatment the applicant will require in the foreseeable future.
I specifically raised with the applicant that it would seem possible he could continue his current treatment, being videocalls with Mr [A] every 2-3 weeks, from Fiji, noting that he has only engaged in these consultations via videocall to date. Mr [A’s] letter relevantly states he is [State 1]-based while the applicant is in [State 2]. Neither the applicant nor his representative responded to my question of why therapy with Mr [A] could not continue from Fiji, either in their oral information or post-hearing written submissions. I am satisfied that these consultations with Mr [A] would be able to continue to occur via video call from Fiji in the foreseeable future, were he to return there. As such I do not accept any potential shortcomings in services or barriers to access in relation to local mental health support services in Fiji will encumber the applicant.
The applicant has the ongoing support of [Partner A], who he indicated encouraged him to engage with both Ms [A] and Mr [A]. Material before the Tribunal is that for the duration of their relationship, including prior to his detention, the applicant and [Partner A] have resided in separate states. He has indicated that he is content with the treatment he is receiving from Mr [A]. His treatment plan for the next year requires 1-2 video calls with Mr [A] per month. Given his established relationship with Mr [A], that he has a treatment plan in place, and that he has the support of [Partner A], I do not accept that were the applicant to return to Fiji he would stop engaging in this treatment.
There is no suggestion, for example, that Mr [A] does not provide a quality service or that he would not maintain privacy and confidentiality. I am not satisfied there is a real chance of it becoming known within the applicant’s community that he engages with Mr [A] for treatment, noting that these sessions are infrequent and occur via videocall.
The material before me is not suggestive of the applicant requiring admission to a psychiatric facility in the foreseeable future were he to return to Fiji. He has no prior history of any such admission, as affirmed by Ms [A]. Neither Ms [A] or Mr [A] suggest that this may be a necessary treatment for the applicant. I do not accept that there is a real chance of this occurring.
Similarly, there is no suggestion in the reports of Ms [A] or Mr [A] of a concern the applicant may be at risk of self-harm or suicide presently or in the foreseeable future, with Ms [A’s] report only noting one instance in which the applicant contemplated self-harm in 2018 immediately following his [child’s] passing. While the 23 June 2025 statement from the applicant asserts he believes that were he to return to Fiji he ‘will become further depressed and self-harm will occur’, I do not consider this is supported by the medical evidence.

.