1706661 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1308 (16 February 2023)

Last Updated: 23 May 2023

1706661 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1308 (16 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER: 1706661

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Fiji

MEMBER: Rachel Da Costa

DATE: 16 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 16 February 2023 at 1:18pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – political opinion – employee of organisation which published anti-government statements – legal action against organisation – job appointment blocked by government official – social media activity in Australia – credibility – overstated claims about work, activities and profile – returns from third country and Australia – sporadic, low-level social media activity – new government after recent election – relevant government official under investigation – member of family unit – no separate claims by second applicant – Australian-born child not an applicant – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 424A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 20 March 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Fiji, applied for the visas on 18 December 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants are not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Background

3. The first applicant (the applicant) is a [Age]-year-old woman from Fiji. The second applicant is a [Age]-year-old man from Fiji and is the applicant’s husband.
4. In her protection visa application form, the applicant provides the following information. She was born in [Location 1], Fiji in [Year 1]. She speaks, reads and writes English and Fijian. She is a Christian and she is married. In Fiji, she has her father and stepmother, a sister, a brother and [half-siblings]. She is in contact with them by phone.
5. From [Year] until [Year], the applicant lived in [Location 2], Fiji. From [Year] until [Year], she lived in [Location 3], Fiji. She completed years [Numbers 1 and 2] of high school in [Location 3] in [Year]. From [Year] until [Year], she lived in [Location 4], Fiji. She completed years [Numbers 3 and 4] of high school in [Location 5, Fiji] in [Year].
6. In [Year] she completed a foundational course at [University 1]. From [Year] until [Year], she lived in [Country 1]. In [Year] she completed a [Qualification 1] at [University 1] in [Country 1]. From [Year] until [Year], she lived in [Location 6]. In [Year] she completed a [Qualification 2] at [University 1] in [Location 3].
7. From [Year] to [Year] she worked for [Employer 1] as [an Occupation 1]. From [Year] to [Year 12], she worked for [Employer 2] as [an Occupation 1]. From [Year] to [Year], she worked as [an Occupation 1] for [Employer 3] in Suva.
8. From [Year] until [2014], she lived in [Country 1], and worked at [Employer 4]] as [an Occupation 2] in [Department]. From [2014] to [July] 2014, the applicant returned to Fiji to prepare for her travel to Australia.
9. She entered Australia as the holder of a Student visa issued on 28 July 2014, travelling on her Fijian passport issued [in] 2012. She came to Australia to study. She arrived in Australia from Fiji [in] July 2014. From July 2014 until September 2014 she lived in [Suburb 1], NSW. In August 2014 she began a [Qualification 3] at [University 2].
10. From September 2014 until September 2015 she lived in [Suburb 2], NSW. From 3 January 2015 to 15 April 2015 she travelled to [Country 2] and [Country 3] for programs related to her studies. Since September 2015 she has lived in [Suburb 3], NSW. In November 2015 she completed her [Qualification 3] at [University 2]
11. In his protection visa application form, the second applicant indicates that he is not making his own claims for protection.

Evidence before the Department

Protection visa application

12. In her protection visa application form, the applicant makes the following claims:
    • The applicant worked for [Employer 3] which is [an] organisation in Fiji. The organisation was [subject to legal proceedings] after it published [specified information]. The applicant was head of [a department] at [Employer 3].
    • The applicant’s [Occupation 1] career was harmed because she applied to [Employer 5] where the [Government official 1] was the [Government official 2] in Fiji. She was advised that she was shortlisted for [an Occupation 1] position and was due for teleconference interview but she was later advised by email that her application was unsuccessful. She was therefore harmed psychologically, socially and economically.
    • She did not seek help because the regime controls every aspect of government and the authorities. She would be further victimised if she complained.
    • The applicant left Fiji in [Year]. She fears for her life, career, future in the [Occupation 1 sector] in Fiji and her family.
    • The applicant fears that returning to Fiji could harm her [Occupation 1] career where the current government controls every aspect and every government department. If her career or future is harmed or threatened then she and her family cannot live a free life and enjoy their life to the fullest.
    • The applicant’s career would be in constant threat and because the head of the [Occupation 1 sector], the [Government official 1], continues to control the [Occupation 1 sector] and its regulations. She fears that her name and [accreditation] will be in constant threat after [Employer 3] published [the information].
    • If she returns to Fiji, the applicant’s [career] would be harmed because of her history with [Employer 3]. The [Government official 1] and the department would have a list of [Occupation 1 employees] and the applicant thinks that her name is on his ‘blacklist’.
    • The authorities would not help her if she went back to Fiji because they are controlled by the current government and are not independent.
    • She cannot relocate within Fiji because her career would be threatened and there would be no job security for her. Therefore, her family’s welfare and security would be threatened.
    • She would be under constant surveillance and threat, therefore she would have no freedom until or unless the government changes.
13. The applicant attached various documents in support of her protection visa application relating to her identity. She also provided copies of various documents relevant to her employment:
    • Reference dated 23 September 2015 from [Employer 3], written by the CEO, [Ms A], which explains the work of [Employer 3] and the role of the applicant;
    • [Document title] dated 9 January 2012 from [the applicant], [Occupation 1] to [CEO];
    • Written submission from [Employer 3] to [a conference] regarding [an Issue], with applicant’s name at the end;
    • [Employer 3] [publication] Fiji [2011], which does not indicate the [authorship];
    • [Employer 3] [publication]: [2012] including at the start a [heading] which states ‘[Employer 3] [Occupation 1], [applicant name] prepared [this]. The [information] was coordinated and prepared by [applicant name] and [Employer 3] Volunteer, [name]...;
    • [Employer 3] [publication]: [2012] including at the start a [heading] which states ‘[Employer 3] prepared [this]. The [information] was coordinated and prepared by [applicant name]....’.
    • Printout of email correspondence between the applicant and [Employer 5] regarding her application for the position of [Occupation 1] dated [February] 2014 in which the applicant is advised that her application was unsuccessful;
    • Undated printout of government organisational chart showing [Mr B] as Acting [Government official 2].

Interview with the delegate

14. On 10 May 2016, the applicant attended an interview with the Department. In the interview, as reflected in the delegate’s decision, the applicant provided further information about her claims including:
    • She left Fiji after the court case against [Employer 3] because she thought her employment prospects in Fiji were jeopardised;
    • The court case against [Employer 3] resulted in the Chief Executive of [Employer 3] being fined and receiving a suspended prison sentence;
    • Through her job at [Employer 3] she had a liaison role with other [Organisations] and [Groups] but she did not speak publicly;
    • She has spoken against the regime on [Social media 1];
    • She cannot work in another field because she wants to do what she was trained to do which is work as [an Occupation 1], particularly in the area of [Issue 1];
    • Because of her work with [Employer 3] she will be affected when she applies for jobs as happened in the past and she won’t be able to get work in her chosen field;
    • [Occupation 1] in Fiji are harassed;
    • She was not arrested when she returned to Fiji and did not have problems entering or exiting the country;
15. At the end of the interview, the applicant said she would provide media articles about the persecution of [Occupation 1] in Fiji. On 22 December 2016, the Department wrote to the applicant noting that no documents had been provided and asking her to provide a copy. The applicant did not respond.

The delegate’s decision

16. On 20 March 2017, the delegate made their decision. As set out in the decision record, the delegate found the applicant’s claims are not supported by country information. While the delegate accepted the applicant was employed by [Employer 3] and involved in the publishing of [information] that painted the government in a negative light, there is no evidence the applicant would face persecution because of this. [Employer 3] continues its work to this day and the CEO at the time of the court case continued to work for the organisation until 2015. The delegate found no evidence to support the applicant’s claim that the organisation received threats and was at risk of closing down. The delegate noted that the political situation in Fiji has experienced improvement since the applicant published her last article in [Year] and since she left in [Year].
17. The delegate found the applicant’s claims in regard to her future employment prospects were not credible, and the applicant did not make further attempts to obtain work in Fiji after being unsuccessful in applying for a job [with Employer 5]. The delegate noted that the applicant had not made attempts to renew her [accreditation]. The delegate considered that the applicant is highly trained and while she expressed a wish to work in her chosen field, she would be capable of stepping outside her field in order to find employment, like she did in [Country 1]. The delegate noted that the applicant has been able to leave and re-enter Fiji on three occasions since the publication of the article that caused [Employer 3] to come to the attention of the government and she has not encountered any problems with the authorities on any of her return trips to Fiji. The delegate found that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and therefore neither was the second applicant.

Evidence before the Tribunal

The review application

18. On 31 March 2017, the applicants lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision. The applicants included a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review.

Pre-hearing submissions and additional documents

19. On 3 August 2022, the applicant provided written submissions to the Tribunal in support of her case. She submits:
    • She fears that her life, which envelopes her social economic wellbeing will be adversely affected should she return to Fiji. Her chances of working in her area of expertise and passion is likely to be jeopardised by the current regime and particularly the iron hand/control of [Government official 1];
    • As [an Occupation 1], she fears she will be victimised and targeted for exercising her personal and political opinion openly and publicly about the state of affairs of Fiji and particularly [Issue 1] and the [Occupation 1] sector. She will not be allowed to practice freely and express her views and work in this field in the Fijian [Occupation 1 sector] due to the restrictions enforced by the Fijian government;
    • [Members of specified occupations] in Fiji who have exercised their rights and freedoms to speak up have been victimised and most have been forced to remain silent. She gives recent examples of Niko Nawaikula and Richard Naidu as being victims of politically motivated cases;
    • She has always publicly voiced her views and opinion on social media, particularly [Social media 1];
    • She was working as [an Occupation 1] for [Employer 3] during the time [Employer 3] published [information] which led to [Employer 3] and the then CEO, [Mr C], [facing legal proceedings] and the government threatened to close down the organisation. The applicant submits that she knew her [Accreditation] could be threatened so she had to leave Fiji and accepted a job in [Country 1] to wait for the situation to calm down. The [Government official 1] was aware of the list of all [Occupation 1s] and the organisations they work with;
    • The applicant thought to return to Fiji and applied for a job with [Employer 5] as [an Occupation 1]. She was shortlisted for interview and then was told the [Employer] was no longer proceeding with her application. The [Government official 1] was the [Government official 2] and he will try to sabotage every [Occupation 1] who has shown any kind of disapproval of what he and the government has done or is doing;
    • She knows the [Government official 1] had a hand in her case because she came across similar situations when he interfered in relation to other people and their jobs (and she provides details in her written submissions);
20. The applicant also provided copies of a number of documents to the Tribunal (some of which had been provided previously):
    • [News source 1] article, ‘[Title 1]’ dated [2012];
    • [News source 2] article, ‘[Title 2]’, dated [2013];
    • [International organisation] Public Statement ‘[Title 3]’, dated [2013];
    • Front page of The Fiji Times with headline [Title 4], date unclear;
    • The Fiji Times article, ‘Nawaikula disqualified from contesting election’, undated but from date in the article it appears to be from 2022;
    • The Fiji Times article, ‘Naidu readies to defend allegation’, undated;
    • Screenshot from phone, date not clear; appears to be [Social media 1] post from page ‘[Page name]’ showing caption ‘[Caption]’ and a comment by the applicant;
    • Printout of cover letter for applicant’s application for role of [Employer 5] [Occupation 1] and subsequent correspondence from [Date] in which the applicant is advised that her application is unsuccessful;
    • Reference for the applicant from [Employer 3] CEO, [Ms A], dated 23 September 2015 which describes the work of [Employer 3] and the applicant’s role;
21. On 12 August 2022, the applicant provided an additional written submission in which she submits:
    • As a [Occupation 1] and considering the work she was involved in, and reports written and social media posts, she faces a real risk considering the recent developments taking place in Fiji now. This includes the risk of mental harm;
    • [Occupation 1] in Fiji have faced public humiliation and mental harm because of speaking out or doing their job;
    • The authorities in Fiji cannot protect her because they have been handpicked by the government of the day. [Mr D, an Occupation 1], was detained for more than 48 hours without being charged. There is a real risk and genuine fear that if she returns, she would undergo such punishment. Harm can include mental harm and suffering.
22. The applicant also provided the following documents:
    • Screenshot of social media page of [Mr E] dated 2022 which talks about the conviction of [Occupation 1, Mr D] in a [defamation case related to senior political figures];
    • Partial screenshots of article from The Fiji Times dated [2022] entitled [Title 5] about [Occupation 1, Mr D] in a [defamation case related to senior political figures];
    • Screenshot of social media page of [Mr D] dated [2018] stating ‘Media censorship is well and truly alive in Fiji’ and complaining about some comments he made being censored;
    • Partial screenshot of article from Fiji Sun [date] (no year) which [states that Occupation 1, Mr D], has been [ordered] by the court to make an immediate apology and to pay damages;
    • Screenshot of social media page of Shailendra Gopal Raju dated ‘20 Jul’ (no year) which makes comments about police brutality and says ‘Say no to Fiji First Party’;
    • Screenshot of social media page of Ishwar Chand dated ‘20 Jul’ (no year) which is headed ‘Fiji police dismiss claims of assault’ and contains part of an article about police brutality;
    • Screenshot of partial social media page of [User name], undated, with a blurry photograph and text which states, ‘[Text] [remainder of text not visible];

The hearings

23. The first hearing was held on 19 August 2022 by telephone. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal but the second applicant did not. As the Tribunal explained to the applicant, the purpose of this hearing was for the Tribunal to ensure it had up-to-date information about the applicants’ circumstances and claims before discussing their claims in detail in a subsequent hearing, given their applications for review were lodged in March 2017.
24. The key pieces of information arising from this hearing were that the applicant confirmed the second applicant, her husband, had no claims of his own; she informed the Tribunal that she now had a [Child] who was born in [Year]; and that she, her husband and [Child] had just relocated to [City] where the applicant had enrolled to study in the field of [Subject]. Her husband has work in [an] industry. The applicant confirmed that she was happy to attend the next Tribunal hearing by videoconference to discuss her claims for protection.
25. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 October 2022 in a resumed hearing to give evidence and present arguments. This hearing was conducted by videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform with the applicant’s consent, given she had relocated to [State] and the Tribunal Member is located in Sydney where the applicant lived previously. Although an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages had been arranged, they were not required as the applicant speaks fluent English.

Post-hearing submissions

26. On 1 November 2022, the applicant provided post-hearing submissions to the Tribunal and additional documents.
27. In her written submissions dated 31 October 2022, the applicant responds to a number of concerns raised by the Tribunal in the hearing and submits that:
    • She has been actively involved in social media as a qualified [Occupation 1] and pro-democracy activist. If she is sent back to Fiji, she fears being threatened, harassed and significantly harmed mentally, emotionally, physically and financially and economically through removing her ability to renew her [Accreditation] and therefore significantly affecting her ability to subsist.
    • The applicant has provided screenshots from her social media from 2018 onwards which support her claim of being a pro-democracy activist and show that she has always been a vocal critic and spoken out against the Fiji government on social media, including since she has been in Australia. She states that she has been involved in activism about Fiji and also in relation to Asia and South East Asia and has been a harsh critic and personally active on [Issue 1]. She speaks out on issues she is passionate about.
    • The applicant also submitted that it is not just prominent people who speak out who are harassed and who require, or are entitled to, protection. She submits that nobody who is vocal against the government in Fiji is safe. She fears she will be subjected to significant harm if she is sent to Fiji because of her ongoing social media pro-democracy and [Issue 1 activism].
    • Her name appears on [Employer 3 publications].
    • After leaving [Employer 3], the applicant attempted to seek employment with [Employer 6] and [Employer 7]. She did not receive an acknowledgment of these applications which is why she had to seek employment outside Fiji and fled Fiji as it was affecting her ability to subsist.
    • If she is sent back to Fiji, due to her work history with [Employer 3] and continued social media pro-democracy and [Issue 1] activism against the Fiji government she will face harm.
28. The Tribunal has carefully considered the screenshots provided by the applicant of her social media activity which show the following:
    • From 2017: around eight shares of articles on [Issue 1] in countries such as Malaysia, Myanmar and India, some with a brief comment by the applicant, along with a post containing a quote about taking personal responsibility and an article about standing up against domestic violence. They do not relate to Fiji. Of these posts, the maximum number of likes received was 12.
    • From 2018: around 20 posts; there are a number of items reposted or shared by the applicant without comment about various events in Fiji. There are several posts from November 2018 with comments about vote counting in the Fijian national election and one criticising the lack of transparency in the elections with the maximum number of likes of any of these posts being 24. There is a post on [Social media 1] dated [Date] in which the applicant criticises [Official body]^[1] as not being an independent body. She refers to the [Government official 1] meeting with the body and suggests he was involved with the body in a way that was not appropriate given the body’s role. She says she worked for [Official body] for three months in [Year] and states ‘[Quotation]’. This article received 49 likes and 7 shares. One share was by “[Account name]” which received 11 likes. The applicant states in her post-hearing submissions that this article is one of the reasons she fears returning to Fiji because she has spoken out against the government.
    • From 2021: two posts. The first reposting [an article]. The second reposting [a comment by Sitiveni Rabuka]. This post does not show any likes, comments or shares.
    • From 2022: three screenshots of other people’s posts about democracy in Fiji, which do not show these posts were shared or commented on by the applicant.
    • Undated: two undated screenshots where the applicant reposts a ‘Grubsheet’ post about the [Government official 1] and a report of a politician being released after questioning and she makes negative comments about [Part of name], which the Tribunal understands to be a reference to the [Government official 1], [Mr B]. These posts do not show any likes or comments or shares or that people have been tagged to bring the posts to the attention of anyone in particular. There is also an undated screenshot of a post where the applicant shares a comment about two Fijian human rights activists and standing up for human rights, shares of two posts by other people about concerns leading up to the 2022 election in Fiji and one share of a post in Fijian which is not translated.

29. The applicant also provided:
    • Copy of a newspaper article by Archbishop Peter Loy Chong, date and source unclear, which states that Fijians live in uncertain times and that he has been threatened for speaking out against the current government;
    • Copy of [Employer 3] [publication]: [Date] which states [Employer 3] [Occupation 1], [applicant name]. The [information was] prepared by [applicant name] and [Employer 3], ...’.
    • [Organisation] Certificate of Completion for the applicant for having attended and participated in the training on [Topic] on [Dates] in Suva, Fiji;
    • Copy of an email dated [Date] in which the applicant makes an Expression of Interest to join the [Occupation 1] team of [Employer 6];
    • Copy of an email dated [Date] in which the applicant submits an application for [an Occupation 1] role at [Employer 7];

Section 424A letter and the applicant’s response

30. On 5 January 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants pursuant to s 424A inviting them to comment or respond to information in light of the election result in Fiji in late 2022. Relevantly, the Tribunal’s letter provided as follows:

...

In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decisions under review.

Please note however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.

The particulars of the information are:

• Following elections in Fiji on 14 December 2022, a new government has been sworn in with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka as Prime Minister. He is the leader of the People’s Alliance Party and governs with support from the National Federation Party (NFP) and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA).^[2]
• The former Prime Minister, Josaia Voreque ‘Frank’ Bainimarama, head of the FijiFirst party, is now the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.^[3]
• In the Tribunal hearing on 26 October 2022, you said that you feared harm from the [Government official 1], [Mr B], due to his power and control over the government and control over the [Occupation 1 sector], including taking action against people who speak out against the government.
• Since the change in government, [Mr B], who is a member of the FijiFirst party, is no longer the [Government official 1]. Further, recent reports indicate that he is [under investigation] and he has left Fiji.^[4]
• Reports indicate that the new [Government official 1]of Fiji is [Mr F].^[5]

This information is relevant to the review because the recent change of government means that [Mr B] is no longer the [Government official 1]of Fiji. The Tribunal might find that this change in circumstances undermines your claims to fear harm from him as [an Occupation 1] and someone who speaks up against the government if you return to Fiji in the foreseeable future.

This information may also lead the Tribunal to find that your claims to fear [Mr B] due to his position and influence, and the Fijian government more generally, are not supported by current country information.

This information may lead the Tribunal to find that based on your claims about your past activities and future intentions, you do not have a well-founded fear of persecution if you return to Fiji in the reasonably foreseeable future or that there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of you being removed from Australia to Fiji.

If the Tribunal does not accept your claims, you may not be entitled to a protection visa.

You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.

...

31. On 19 January 2023, the applicant responded in writing to the Tribunal’s letter. She stated that
    • She is disappointed by the length of time it has taken for her hearing to take place in the Tribunal. Her case has only now been fast-tracked after the government in Fiji has changed;
    • The situation in Fiji remains unstable and uncertain because the previous Bainimarama government have made allegations of harassment targeted at Indo-Fijian homes and businesses, they are not accepting defeat and have called on the military to be involved after the election results were seen to be turning against them. It is not a good time to return to Fiji.
    • The absence of the former [Government official 1] from the country and the investigation against him may trigger retaliation from Bainimarama against the new government. The former [Government official 1] continues to play a role in the affairs of FijiFirst. The new government has only been in place for three to four weeks. The previous party continues to undermine the stability of the nation and the new government. It is therefore unsafe to return to Fiji due to the actions of the former Prime Minister. He will continue to make accusations against the current government and to attempt to remove the newly elected government. It is never safe as long as Bainimarama is in the picture of Fiji’s politics.
    • Her claims for protection must be considered in parallel to the response from the previous government to the election results and increasing sensitivity to political activity, in particular the treatment of anyone who is seen as opposition to the previous regime, such as the applicant. For someone with her profile as [an Occupation 1] who has been in direct opposition and conflict with senior government officials including the [Government official 1] and the president, Fiji is a dangerous place and the chance of her facing persecution are more than remote.
    • The applicant believes that her profile as [an Occupation 1] should be given significant weight by the Tribunal in assessing her claims for protection. She does not believe that someone with her profile will be protected by the state.
    • The applicant submits that the previous government will continue to have control over many government officials and people within the country and therefore it is these officials she fears, given she has been such a vocal critic of the previous government and they will target her on return.
32. The applicant provided copies of a number of articles as follows:
    • Aljazeera online article ‘Fiji military chief concerned over new PM’s sweeping changes’, dated 17 January 2023;
    • ABC News article ‘Fiji’s government summons top military commander Major General Jone Kalouniwai over critical statement’ dated 19 January 2023;
    • The Guardian article ‘Fiji military warns new PM’s government against making sweeping changes’ dated 17 January 2023;
    • Screenshots from social media page of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka dated ‘6 Jan’ including part of his address to the nation;
    • Screenshot from social media page of FijiFirst with statement dated 22 December 2022 and ‘4 Jan’ from Frank Bainimarama expressing concern about good governance in Fiji.
33. On 26 January 2023, the applicant sent a further email to the Tribunal stating that:^[6]
    1. The former [Government official 1], [Mr B] has returned to Fiji on [Date];
    2. That he has made a press conference despite the fact He is no longer a member of Parliament. This shows he and the Fiji First party including the former PM, Frank Bainimarama is still trying to destabilise the Coalition government in Fiji.
    3. In my recent submissions dated 19 January 2023, I submitted that the Fiji First party which kait the 2022 general elections have not formally condeeded. Therefor and with all the recent developments, it is not a very safe time to return to Fiji and as long as the two are in the picture, they will try to destabilise and bring down the coalition government.
34. The applicant attached:
    • undated screenshots of ‘Grubsheet’s post’ with extracts of an online article about the political situation in Fiji. The date, author of this article and the source of the information it contains is not clear;
    • Undated screenshot of fijivillage social media page with a photograph and caption, ‘[Caption]... See more’;
    • Screenshot of [a newspaper article about the return of Mr B] [date 2023] and first line of the article.

Nationality

35. The applicants claim to be citizens of Fiji. The applicant provided to the Department a certified copy of the bio-data page of her Fijian passport issued on [Date 1] 2012 and the second applicant provided to the Department a certified copy of the bio-data page of his Fijian passport issued on [Date 2] 2012. The applicant also provided a certified copy of her name change certificate, birth certificate and marriage certificate. The second applicant also provided a certified copy of his name change certificate and birth certificate. The delegate was satisfied that the applicants were using their own identity and documents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are citizens of Fiji. The Tribunal finds Fiji is their receiving country for the purposes of assessing their claims for protection.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The relevant law

36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. 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.
40. 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

41. 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.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Analysis, reasons and findings

42. The issue in this case is whether the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
43. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that she filled in her protection visa application form herself and that all the information she has provided in support of her application is true and correct.
44. During the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant her family, her education, her employment history, her travel and migration history, her political views, the problems she experienced in Fiji and why she fears returning to Fiji. While the Tribunal found the applicant to be a truthful witness overall, it has concerns about aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence which it considers to be exaggerated and not supported by independent evidence. The Tribunal’s concerns are discussed below.
45. In considering the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal has taken into account all the country information provided by the applicant about various aspects of the political situation in Fiji, particularly relating to [Issue 1], the [Occupation 1 sector] and freedom of speech. Where relevant, this country information is referred to specifically below.
46. The Tribunal notes that in her letter dated 19 January 2023, the applicant expresses disappointment with the length of time it has taken for her hearing to take place in the Tribunal and asserts that her case has now only been fast-tracked after the government in Fiji has changed. The Tribunal is sympathetic to the applicant’s disappointment at the length of time it has taken for her application for review to be heard by a Tribunal Member given her and her husband’s applications were lodged with the Tribunal in 2017. However, the Tribunal rejects any suggestion that the timing of the hearing of the applications for review were in any way linked to, or influenced by, the timing of the elections in Fiji in December 2022. The Tribunal also notes that, for the reasons explained below, the outcome of the recent election has not changed the Tribunal’s decision.

The applicant’s work for [Employer 3]

47. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked for [Employer 3] as its [Occupation 1] from [Year] to [Year]. The Tribunal accepts the description of the applicant’s role in the reference provided by the CEO of [Employer 3], [Ms A], dated 23 September 2015, which included:

...[Detailed description of the applicant’s duties]. ...

48. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s evidence that she was involved in some outreach activities in villages [on behalf of Employer 3] and that her name appears in [Employer 3 publications] dated [Date] and [Year] which explains her role in producing those [publications]. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did not claim that she was the actual author of the content of these [publications], but that she coordinated the collation of the information and preparation of the [publications]. The Tribunal accepts this.
49. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that she was the [Occupation 1] at [Employer 3] at the time [an article] was published in [Year] and that the article quoted a report written by [Mr G] which questioned [the government’s handling of an issue]. The Tribunal accepts that as a consequence of this article being published, [Employer 3] and its CEO, [Mr C], were [subject to legal proceedings]. [Employer 3] was ordered to publish an apology and [Mr C] was given a suspended jail sentence and fined.^[7] The applicant has provided some articles about this incident.
50. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked whether there were any consequences for her personally of this incident. She said that the [Government official 1]knew she worked for [Employer 3], the organisation was threatened with closure and so her livelihood was threatened, which is what made her leave Fiji. She said she was worried about her [Accreditation] and the [Government official 1] interfering with it so that is why she left.
51. Based on the applicant’s evidence, including the reference provided in September 2015 from the then CEO of [Employer 3], and country information, the Tribunal finds that [Employer 3] was not closed down as a result of the court proceedings, that it continues to operate and [Mr C] continued in his role as CEO until [Year].^[8] The applicant’s evidence is that she was worried about maintaining her job and so she left the [Employer 3] voluntarily and sought different employment. She did not claim, for example, that she was forced out of her job with [Employer 3] when she finished in [Year], or that the [Government official 1] did in fact interfere with her [Accreditation] at this time which is why she left her role with [Employer 3]. The Tribunal has a concern that the applicant has exaggerated the impact on her of the legal proceedings against [Employer 3].

The applicant’s subsequent job applications in Fiji

52. The applicant’s evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, is that she started work as [an Occupation 2] in the [Department] in [Employer 4], [Country 1] in [Year] and remained in that role until [2014].
53. In her written submissions and in the Tribunal hearing, the applicant claims that in [2014] she applied for the role of [Occupation 1] with [Employer 5] in Fiji and that she missed out due to her past connection to [Employer 3]. She claims that the [Government official 1] was also the [Government official 2] in Fiji at this time. The applicant claims that she was advised that she was shortlisted for the role and was told she would be interviewed, but the next day she received an email saying her application was unsuccessful. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked why she thought not being interviewed for the role had anything to do with her position at [Employer 3]. She responded that the [Government official 1] knew she was the [Occupation 1] at [Employer 3]. The Tribunal asked her why the [Government official 1] would be concerned about that and she responded that it was because of the article [Employer 3] published.
54. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had any evidence to support her claim that she missed out on the role at [Employer 5] due to the [Government official 1]’s interference. As set out in her written submissions dated 3 August 2022, she said she had seen it happen before to someone when she worked at [Employer 2]. She said [a person] had been chosen for a particular role at [Employer 2] by the Chairperson and then the [Government official 1] called the Chairperson and told him to drop the chosen candidate. In her written submissions dated 3 August 2022, the applicant also refers to the [Government official 1] terminating the position of the then [Government official 3] because he didn’t like the outcome of a [Proceeding].
55. The Tribunal put to the applicant that even if it accepted those instances she referred to happened as she claims, it might not accept that is what happened in her case. The applicant responded that organisations under the [Government department] will report to the [Government official 1] on who they are planning to recruit. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it might not accept that missing out on a job is serious or significant harm. The applicant responded that it affected her and it tells her that her prospects of work in Fiji are questionable. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she applied for more jobs at the time. She said she could not remember, but this incident took away her motivation to apply for more. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it might not accept that missing out on one job indicated that her job prospects were destroyed. The applicant responded that it affected her.
56. In her post-hearing submissions, the applicant states that after leaving [Employer 3], she attempted to seek employment with the [Employer 6] and [Employer 7] as [an Occupation 1]. She states that she did not receive an acknowledgment of these applications which is why she had to seek employment outside Fiji and fled Fiji as it was affecting her ability to subsist. The applicant provided a copy of an email dated [Date] in which she submits an Expression of Interest for the [Employer 6] role and an email dated [Date] in which she applies for the [Employer 7] role. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant did not receive an acknowledgment of her applications for these roles. The Tribunal notes that this additional evidence the applicant provided about applying for jobs relates to the time when she finished her role at [Employer 3] at the end of [Year], and not to the same time as she applied for the job with [Employer 5] in [2014]. She did not provide any evidence to show that she applied for further jobs in Fiji in 2014 after missing out on the job with [Employer 5].
57. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant applied unsuccessfully for a role as [Occupation 1] at [Employer 5] in [2014], the Tribunal has a concern about the applicant’s evidence as to why she missed out on the role. The applicant claims that she missed out because of the interference of the [Government official 1] as a result of her past role at [Employer 3]. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s evidence about this is speculative and not supported by any independently verifiable evidence about her particular situation. She refers to two instances in which she says she knows the [Government official 1] intervened in the appointment of people to roles, however, even if the Tribunal accepts what she says about those people this does not mean the same thing happened to her. The Tribunal does not accept that missing out on one job in 2014 is indicative of the applicant’s job prospects having been sabotaged by the [Government official 1]. One unsuccessful application does not indicate a pattern. There could be any number of reasons why the applicant was not ultimately interviewed, including that there were stronger applicants for the role and so the people in question decided not to go ahead with her interview. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant was disappointed about missing out on the role.

Applicant’s travel in and out of Fiji

58. In the interview with the delegate, as reflected in the delegate’s decision, the applicant confirmed that she was not arrested when she returned to Fiji in 2014 and she did not have problems entering or exiting the country.
59. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant confirmed that while living in [Country 1] from [Year] to 2014 she returned to Fiji three times for work and to visit family and she did not have any problems with the authorities on those visits.
60. As discussed with the applicant in the Tribunal hearing, the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Fiji from 2021^[9] explains that the Public Order Act allows the government to restrict freedom of departure and arrival in Fiji for various reasons including for political and security reasons and this is done through immigration watchlists. Country information indicates that these powers have existed for many years, including at the time the [Employer 3] incident took place in [Year]^[10] and was used in respect of people like human rights lawyers and political activists who criticised the government. Country information indicates that it is generally only high-profile people who are of interest to the government and have faced restrictions. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the fact she travelled in and out of Fiji several times after the [Employer 3] incident and did not have problems doing that might indicate that she was not of sufficient interest to the authorities back then to be placed on any immigration watchlist, and this might lead the Tribunal to find that she would not be of interest now either. The applicant did not make a specific response to this but said she had recently commented on some social media posts.
61. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that her travel history while in [Country 1] after leaving [Employer 3] might indicate that she did not fear harm in Fiji, because she travelled back there several times and she applied for a job in Fiji in early 2014. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this appeared to indicate she wanted to move back to Fiji and live and work there. The Tribunal put to the applicant that despite her evidence about missing out on the job with [Employer 5] and her claimed reason for this, it might not accept that she feared harm in Fiji at the time she left and came to Australia in 2014. The applicant responded that she travelled to Fiji when she was working in [Country 1] and she never stayed long, and her travel didn’t relate to her work as [an Occupation 1]. She didn’t spend much time in Fiji and she wasn’t [working as an Occupation 1]. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response, but does not accept it. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant genuinely feared harm from the Fijian government following her role at [Employer 3], she would not have applied for a job that involved her returning to live and work in Fiji in 2014.

The applicant’s claims to be a [Issue 1] and pro-democracy activist

62. In her protection visa application, the applicant claims that her [Occupation 1] career would be harmed because of her history with [Employer 3]. In her interview with the delegate, the applicant gave evidence that she did not speak publicly in her role with [Employer 3] but claimed that she has spoken against the Fijian regime on social media through [Social media 1].
63. In her pre-hearing submissions to the Tribunal, the applicant claims that as [an Occupation 1], she will be victimised and targeted for exercising her personal and political opinion openly and publicly about the state of affairs in Fiji. She has always publicly voiced her views and opinions on social media, particularly [Social media 1].
64. In her post-hearing submissions, the applicant describes herself as [an Occupation 1] and pro-democracy activist. She says she has always been a vocal critic and spoken out against the Fiji government on social media, including since she has been in Australia. She states that she has been involved in activism on Fiji and also in relation to South East Asia and has been a harsh critic and personally active on [Issue 1]. She refers to her social media pro-democracy and [Issue 1] activism. As referred to above, the applicant has provided the Tribunal with copies of her social media posts since 2017 in support of this.
65. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the social media posts provided by the applicant in support of her claim to be an activist, as described in paragraph 28 above. The Tribunal considers that these posts show that from time to time since 2017, the applicant has engaged with political and [Issue 1 discussion] via social media, including events in Fiji. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s posts show that her engagement has been sporadic and was at its peak (of 20 posts in the year) in 2018 and in particular, around the November 2018 election in Fiji. The Tribunal was unable to identify any posts from 2019 or 2020 and there are very few from 2021 and 2022. Many of the applicant’s posts are simply resharing the posts of others and sometimes she has added a comment of her own. Her posts often appear to receive no, or very few (less than 20) likes, infrequent comments by others, and few shares or re-posting by others, which in the Tribunal’s view indicates that any profile and following she might have on social media is very low.
66. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s [Social media 1] post dated [date] 2018 in which she criticises [Official body] and the (then) [Government official 1], and two undated posts in which she also makes a negative comment about the [Government official 1]. This post received 49 likes and 7 shares, including a share by “[Account name]” which received 11 likes. Despite this, the Tribunal does not consider that the single post about [Official body], or even combined with the two other undated posts that mention the [Government official 1], would be sufficient to turn the applicant into a person with a profile of concern to the Fijian government. The applicant has not given evidence that she is aware of any negative consequences as a result of the [2018] post, or due to her social media activity more generally. In the Tribunal’s view, the evidence of the applicant’s social media activity does not demonstrate that she has built a significant following on social media as an ‘activist’ or as someone who is regularly outspoken against the Fijian government or even that her social media activity could accurately be described as ‘activism’ apart from at a very low level.
67. The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s claims about her political activism with her in the hearing. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was involved in politics or political activism in Fiji and she said she was involved through her work for [Employer 3]. The Tribunal asked her whether she was a political activist in Fiji and she said she was not, but she was involved in advocacy for human rights and democracy through her work at [Employer 3]. The Tribunal has set out above its findings on the scope of the applicant’s role with [Employer 3].
68. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether, after leaving Fiji in early [Year], she was involved in any political activism or politics and she said she was not. The Tribunal asked her whether he had been involved in politics or activism relating to Fiji since arriving in Australia. She responded that she has not been personally or directly involved. She follows people on [Social media 1] and follows their movements on social media. She is not involved personally but still maintains an interest in what other people are doing. Sometimes she comments on their social media posts. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was involved in any other way apart from commenting on other people’s social media posts and she responded that she was not directly involved. She said that she had more social media posts she wanted to submit as evidence.^[11]
69. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there was a reason why she hadn’t been involved since being in Australia and she responded that she had family commitments including with her [Child] and she didn’t have time to do it with her studies and other things. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it sounded as though she had not been involved in any activism since being in Australia. The applicant referred to a number of social media posts she had made speaking against the Fiji government but said she does not have the same number of followers as some people. The Tribunal noted one of her posts which said she was going to Parliament house which had been liked by two people and asked about the relevance. The applicant responded that Australians are free to voice their opinion on how things should run and the government should operate. The Tribunal put to the applicant that she could have exercised that freedom in Australia and spoken up against the Fijian government as an activist if she had wanted to, but it appears that she has not. The applicant responded that she was worried about security if she did that because the Australian government allows Fijian military officials to come to Australia and she needed to stay under the radar because of her [Child]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was not aware of country information indicating activists in countries like Australia were being harmed by Fijian authorities. The applicant responded that nobody would believe her if she said that but there are things that are not shown to the public. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response but does not accept it as it is not supported by country information. Later in the hearing, the applicant claimed that the reason she has not been speaking out as an activist in Australia is that she does not have the security of being a citizen in Australia and so the lack of permanency is what prevents her from speaking up.
70. The Tribunal put to the applicant its concern about her lack of political activity since being in Australia and how that might affect her claimed profile as an activist. The Tribunal explained that this might lead it to find that she would not be a person of interest to the Fijian authorities and would not face a real chance of serious harm.
71. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she would involve herself in activism or politics if she returned to Fiji. She said that is what she intended to do. The Tribunal asked her why she would do that from Fiji given her lack of activity in Australia. She said that advocating from Australia would not lead to substantial change but being on the ground is what she believes can make the difference. The applicant gave evidence that if she returned to Fiji, she wants to have her own [Occupation 1 business] and [be involved in Issue 1]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that based on her past conduct, it might find she had not been an activist in Fiji or Australia and that might lead it to doubt she would behave as an activist if she returned to Fiji. The applicant said that if you are involved in politics, people need to see you, so you need to be in the place to influence and attract change.
72. In the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal discussed country information with the applicant about critics of the Fijian government. This included discussing country information provided by the applicant in support of her claims.
73. As discussed with the applicant, country information like the current DFAT Report on Fiji^[12] and the US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Fiji from 2021^[13] indicates that people and NGOs who criticise the Fijian government, including online, face a low risk of official discrimination and consequences for this might be questioning or short-term arrest. The risk is much higher for high-profile individuals. These can be people like opposition politicians, political activists and certain indigenous rights activists. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided some articles about particular high-profile people like a Member of Parliament, a lawyer who is the son of a former Prime Minister and another prominent human rights lawyer, who have spoken out publicly against the regime and had contempt of court proceedings brought against them. The Tribunal also referred to the former CEO of [Employer 3] who was given a fine and a suspended jail sentence. Country information indicates that consequences for this type of activity might include questioning, monitoring or harassment through the courts.
74. The Tribunal put to the applicant that based on the country information, it might find that the people who have faced significant consequences for speaking out against the Fijian government are high-profile individuals and there are not many of them. The Tribunal put to the applicant that based on the evidence before it, it might find that she would not fall into the same category as those people. The Tribunal might find that she does not have a high profile, or even a moderately high profile and that she would not be a person of interest to the authorities as an activist or critic of the government if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future.
75. The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant that country information indicates that most activists are able to speak up and speak out against the government. There are reports^[14] of outspoken activists being taken in for short term questioning or arrested for speaking out but the reports do not indicate these people were harmed during that process. The DFAT Report suggests the risk of violence is low^[15] and the focus is very much on high-profile opponents. The country information also does not indicate that all [Issue 1 activists and Occupation 1s] are at risk of harm. The Tribunal put to the applicant that even if it found that she would speak up against the government if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future, it might find that with her profile she would not face a real chance of serious harm. The applicant responded, referring to the [Occupation 1, Mr D] who she says spoke up as an activist and had his livelihood damaged and his pets were killed. The Tribunal reiterated that it might find the applicant would not fit into that category of high-profile people. She responded that if she goes back and establishes her [Occupation 1 work on Issue 1] she might have problems with the [Government official 1] and if she becomes involved in politics she is fearful of what might happen to her.
76. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it might not accept that she was a person of concern as an activist or [Occupation 1] when she was in Fiji and worked for [Employer 3], even after the [Year] newsletter was published. The Tribunal explained that based on the evidence before it, it might find that the applicant has not done anything since leaving Fiji that would make her a person of adverse concern to the Fijian government as an activist. It might find that she has posted on social media and that is all, and she has not been an activist in Australia speaking out publicly against the Fijian government which she could have done if she had been motivated to do so because of her claimed strong beliefs. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that as a result, it might also find that she would not engage in political activism against the Fijian government if she returned in the foreseeable future. The applicant responded that people fear speaking up in Fiji and the only way for her to speak up is through other activists.
77. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it might find that she does not have a high profile as a political activist or [Occupation 1] and that with her current profile she would not be of concern to the Fijian government as an activist or [Occupation 1] if she returned there in the foreseeable future and therefore she would not face a real chance of serious harm. The applicant responded that there is fear there in Fiji for everyone.
78. Having considered all the applicant’s claims and evidence about her political involvement and activism, as well as the country information referred to above, the Tribunal has a number of concerns.
79. First, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has exaggerated the level of interest the [Government official 1] had in her at the time she worked for [Employer 3] through to the time she applied for [Employer 5] role in January 2014. Despite the applicant’s claims, in the Tribunal’s view there is no probative evidence to indicate that the [Government official 1] interfered with her [Accreditation] or job applications at this time (or subsequently). In her protection visa application form, the applicant says she thinks her name is on a ‘blacklist’ of [Occupation 1s] but she has not provided any evidence to support this, such as having applied for [Accreditation] in Fiji and being refused. Secondly, on the applicant’s evidence, she did not have any problems travelling in and out of Fiji several times in [Year] and 2014 despite her past role at [Employer 3], which the Tribunal considers indicates that she was not regarded as a person of concern. Thirdly, while the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was the [Occupation 1] at the time the [information] was published which led to [Employer 3] [being subject to court proceedings], the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the only individual who faced official consequences was the CEO, [Mr C], who was named as a respondent in the court proceedings and who remained in his role at [Employer 3] until his retirement in [Year]. The applicant, in her role as [Occupation 1], was not, for example, made a respondent in the court proceedings or removed from her role at [Employer 3]. Her evidence is that she left voluntarily.
80. Fourthly, the Tribunal has a concern that as her protection visa application process has progressed, the applicant’s description of herself and her role has evolved from [an Occupation 1] to [an Occupation 1] and pro-democracy activist to a prominent [Occupation 1 dealing with Issue 1]. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal has concerns that these latter descriptions are an exaggeration of the applicant’s activities and are not consistent with the evidence or her profile. The applicant gave evidence in the Tribunal hearing that she was not involved in politics or political activism in Fiji apart from her work for [Employer 3] which advocated [on Issue 1] and democracy. She worked for [Employer 3] for approximately two years, finishing in [Year]. She also gave evidence that she has not been involved in politics or political activism since leaving Fiji in 2014 and arriving in Australia, other than her social media activity. As set out above, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s social media activity to be sporadic and at a low level.
81. When asked about the reasons for her lack of political activism since being in Australia, the applicant’s evidence evolved as the Tribunal continued to question her and express its concerns about her responses. The applicant’s initial evidence was that she hadn’t been involved because she didn’t have time and was busy with other things. This changed to being worried about Fijian military officials being in Australia and her need to protect her [Child], and then to lacking the security of being an Australian citizen and therefore feeling vulnerable about speaking up. In the Tribunal’s view, these changes in the applicant’s evidence undermine her credibility on this point. The Tribunal prefers the applicant’s initial response which is that she does not have much time, rather than her lack of activity being due to fear. Her initial response was given spontaneously in answer to the Tribunal’s question and before the Tribunal had raised any concerns about her level of activism. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s later responses were given in an effort to recast her low level of activity in a political light, which the Tribunal does not accept. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant were truly a committed political activist, she would prioritise her activism and find the time to engage regularly and in a more substantive way than simply through her very limited social media activity.
82. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is [an Occupation 1] with an interest in [Issue 1], the Tribunal considers the applicant’s descriptions of herself as a [Occupation 1] and pro-democracy activist, and a prominent [Occupation 1 dealing with Issue 1], to be an overstatement of her profile. Based on the all the evidence before it, even taking the applicant’s evidence at its highest, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant can be considered to fall within the same category as the [high-profile activists] who have experienced problems with the Fiji government and the [Government official 1], as referred to in country information. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s submission in her post-hearing submissions that it is not just prominent people who speak out who are harassed and require protection, however based on the country information referred to above, the Tribunal does not accept that a person with the applicant’s profile would be of adverse interest to the Fijian government or the [Government official 1] personally. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant genuinely holds views that are critical of the (now former) Fijian government and its human rights record and the role of the then [Government official 1] in that government, based on all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is of the view that in terms of having a political profile as a critic of the Fijian government, the applicant’s profile is low or very low.

Findings

83. Having carefully considered all the applicant’s claims and evidence, and taking into account the country information referred to above, the Tribunal makes the following findings in addition to the findings already made above.
84. The Tribunal finds that the applicant left her role at [Employer 3] voluntarily in late [Year] and sought different employment. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the [Government official 1] did not interfere with the applicant’s [Accreditation] or job prospects at this time, or at any other time. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant fled Fiji as it was affecting her ability to subsist.
85. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unsuccessful in her application for the role of [Occupation 1] with [Employer 5] in Fiji in February 2014 due to interference by the [Government official 1] as a result of her former role with [Employer 3]. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was unsuccessful in her applications for roles at [Employer 6] or [Employer 7] due to interference by the [Government official 1] insofar as she suggests this was the case. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant being unsuccessful in her application for the role of [Occupation 1] with [Employer 5] in Fiji in February 2014 indicates that her employment prospects in Fiji were, or have been, sabotaged or harmed by the [Government official 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s name is on a ‘blacklist’ of [Occupation 1s] in Fiji.
86. Based on the applicant’s lack of difficulty entering and exiting Fiji in [Year] and 2014, the Tribunal finds that she was not a person of adverse concern to the Fijian government at this time.
87. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a qualified [Occupation 1] with an interest in [Issue 1] who worked at [Employer 3] at the time it published an article that led to [Employer 3] and its CEO being [Subject to legal proceedings]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has posted on social media sporadically since 2017 about [Issue 1] and democracy, including in Fiji, but for the reasons explained above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s political profile as a critic of the (now former) Fijian government is low to very and she would not have been regarded as a person of concern or interest to the former government. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s lack of political activity since she has been in Australia is due to fear and finds that her lack of activity is due to her giving more priority to other things in her life. Based on all the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a Fijian pro-democracy activist in any meaningful sense or a prominent [Occupation 1].
88. The Tribunal has considered the consequences for the applicant’s claims due to the change in government in Fiji in late 2022, below.

Do the applicants meet the refugee criterion?

89. As noted above, in the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed that her husband, the second applicant was not making his own claims for protection. The Tribunal accepts this and its findings below are made accordingly.
90. The Tribunal has made findings below about whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion on the basis of her claims which related to the former Fijian government that lost the election in December 2022, which is the government that was in place at the time the applicant made her claims and the Tribunal hearings were held. The Tribunal has also considered whether, and if so how, the change of government in December 2022 affects its findings and has made findings on that basis as well. Part of the Tribunal’s reason for doing this is to demonstrate that even if there had not been a change of government in Fiji in December 2022, this would not have affected the Tribunal’s ultimate decision.
91. In her protection visa application form, the applicant claims that if she returns to Fiji, her [Occupation 1] career will be harmed because of her history with [Employer 3] and the control by the [Government official 1] of the [Occupation 1 sector] in Fiji. She claims she would be under constant surveillance and threat. As set out above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s profile as a critic of the (now former) Fijian government is low to very low and that she would not be of adverse interest to the Fijian government. The Tribunal has also found that the [Government official 1] did not interfere with the applicant’s [Accreditation] or sabotage her job applications and that she is not on any ‘blacklist’ of [Occupation 1s] despite her role with [Employer 3]. In light of this, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal finds that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future.
92. In her interview with the delegate, the applicant claims that she won’t be able to get work in her chosen field, which is as [an Occupation 1 with an interest] in [Issue 1], because of her profile and that [Occupation 1s] in Fiji are harassed. As set out above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s profile as a critic of the (now former) Fijian government is low to very low and she would not be of adverse interest to the Fijian government. The Tribunal has also found that the [Government official 1] did not interfere with the applicant’s [Accreditation] or sabotage her job applications and that she is not on any ‘blacklist’ of [Occupation 1]s despite her role with [Employer 3]. In light of this, the Tribunal does not accept that any difficulty the applicant may face finding work in her chosen field of [Occupation 1] would be due to these matters and it does not accept her claim in this regard. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant being unable to find work as a [Occupation 1] in Fiji would amount to serious or significant harm. The applicant is a highly skilled and qualified person who the Tribunal considers would be able to find employment if she returned to Fiji and she would be able to subsist. As for the applicant’s claim that [Occupation 1s] in general in Fiji are harassed, as discussed with the applicant in the hearing and referred to above, this is not supported by country information and therefore the Tribunal does not accept this claim either. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future.
93. In her pre-hearing submissions, the applicant claims that if she returns to Fiji, as [an Occupation 1] she will be victimised and targeted for exercising her personal and political opinions about the state of affairs in Fiji and particularly [Issue 1] and the [Occupation 1] sector. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant stated that she fears not being able to [do Occupation 1] in a free environment because of the interference of the [Government official 1]. In her post-hearing submissions, the applicant claims that if she returns to Fiji she will be subjected to significant harm because of her ongoing social media pro-democracy and [activism] and her past work with [Employer 3]. For the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal does not accept these claims made by the applicant, as the Tribunal considers these claims to be variations of the applicant’s claims considered above. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future.
94. The Tribunal has considered the impact of the change of government in Fiji in December 2022 on the applicant’s claims. As set out in the Tribunal’s letter to the applicant dated 5 January 2023, following elections in Fiji on 14 December 2022, a new government has been sworn in with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka as Prime Minister. He is the leader of the People’s Alliance Party and governs with support from the National Federation Party (NFP) and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA).^[16] The former Prime Minister, Josaia Voreque ‘Frank’ Bainimarama, head of the FijiFirst party, is now the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.^[17] Since the change in government, [Mr B], who is a member of the FijiFirst party, is no longer the [Government official 1] and reports indicate that the new [Government official 1] is [Mr F].^[18] The new Fijian government under Prime Minister Rabuka has committed itself to democratic government and governance including appropriate standards of conduct for Ministers and listening to a wide range of political views. The government has also made a specific commitment to media freedom and the part it plays in Fiji’s democracy.^[19]
95. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has an actual and imputed political opinion against the previous government which lost the election in December 2022. The applicant has not claimed that she holds similarly negative views about the current government and based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that she does not. In her response to the Tribunal’s letter of 5 January 2023, the applicant suggests that ‘as someone with my profile, as [an Occupation 1 interested in Issue 1], who has been in direct opposition and conflict with senior government officials including the [Government official 1] and the president of the country, Fiji is a dangerous place.’ She claims this is the case because the previous government will continue to have control over many government officials who will target her on her return ‘given [she has] been such a vocal critic of the previous government’. As set out above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant has a low to very low profile as a critic of the former government and would not face a real chance of serious harm due to this. There is a new [Government official 1] in place which suggests that the former [Government official 1] no longer has the same influence over the regulation of the [Occupation 1 sector] that he may have had in the past given he no longer holds that role. The applicant has not provided country information or other evidence to support her claim about being targeted by government officials who were connected to the previous government. Even if the Tribunal accepts that there are still government officials in place who continue to support the previous government (which seems likely), this does not change the Tribunal’s finding that based on her low profile, the applicant would not be a person of concern and so she would not face a real chance of serious harm if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal considers that the new government’s public commitment to democracy and good governance further strengthen its findings in this regard.
96. The applicant also claims that it is not safe for her to return to Fiji despite the change in government because the former Prime Minister and [Government official 1] are continuing to try to destabilise the new government. Again, even if the Tribunal accepts this is the case, it does not change the Tribunal’s findings that the applicant’s low profile means she would not face a real chance of serious harm if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future. Even in the hypothetical scenario that there is a change of government in the foreseeable future back to the previous regime, based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal’s findings about the applicant’s low profile and not being a person of concern to the former government and [Government official 1] would still apply.
97. For completeness, based on the evidence before it the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm as a result of the recent change of government in Fiji.
98. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant would involve herself in activism or politics if she returned to Fiji. As referred to above, when the Tribunal discussed this with the applicant in the hearing (prior to the change of government) the applicant said that is what she intended to do and that she wanted to have her own [Occupation 1 business] in Fiji and [Work] in the area of [Issue 1] and take on issues. The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing that based on her past conduct, it might find she had not been an activist in Fiji or Australia and that might lead it to doubt she would behave as an activist if she returned to Fiji. The applicant said that if you are involved in politics, people need to see you, so you need to be in the place to influence and attract change. Based on the evidence before it, including the Tribunal’s findings about the nature and low level of activism engaged in by the applicant in Australia and the reasons for that, the Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future that she would become a political activist or involve herself in politics. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that she would seek work in the area of [Issue 1] but whether or not she would be successful in finding such work, and whether she would open her own [Occupation 1 business] and the type of work she would take on, is speculative. The Tribunal also notes that in the past, the applicant has sought [Occupation 1] and non-[Occupation 1 work]. As noted above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s assertion that all [Occupation 1s dealing with Issue 1] in Fiji are harassed, because it is not supported by country information, and it has found that the people who have experienced problems are a small number of high-profile [Occupation 1s] and activists who have a different profile from the applicant. Based on all the evidence before it, including the country information considered above, and noting the change in political circumstances in Fiji, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances if she returned to Fiji in the foreseeable future.
99. Taking into account the findings set out above and the country information referred to in this decision, and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicants return to Fiji now or in the foreseeable future that they face a real chance of serious harm for any reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason.
100. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution, it is not satisfied that the applicants meet the definition of refugee in s 5H(1). As the applicants do not meet the definition in s 5H(1), the Tribunal is not satisfied they are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Do the applicants meet the complementary protection criterion?

101. As the Tribunal has found that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether the applicants meet the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
102. As the ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion,^[20] for the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not face a real risk of significant harm for any reason. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

Conclusion

103. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.

DECISION

104. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Rachel Da Costa
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation

...

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

...

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

...

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

...

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

...

5H Meaning of refugee

(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

...

5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

(2) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

(3) A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

(i) alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

(ii) conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

(iii) alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

(iv) conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

(v) enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

(vi) alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4) If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

(5) Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

(b) significant physical harassment of the person;

(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

(6) In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i) the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii) any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c) any of the following apply:

(i) the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii) the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii) the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

(1) For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

(i) the relevant State; or

(ii) a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

(2) A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

(a) the person can access the protection; and

(b) the protection is durable; and

(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

...

36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

...

(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i) is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(ii) holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i) is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

(ii) holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A) A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B) However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

...

---

^[1] [Official body’s full name].
^[2] Fiji country brief | Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (dfat.gov.au)
^[3] As above.
^[4] [Reference deleted]
^[5] [References deleted]
^[6] Not corrected for spelling
^[7] [Reference deleted]
^[8] [References deleted] (accessed 13 February 2023)
^[9] https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/fiji/ (accessed 15 February 2023)
^[10] US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Fiji from [Year 13].
^[11] The applicant submitted further social media posts with her post-hearing submissions, as mentioned above.
^[12] DFAT Country Information Report, Fiji, 20 May 2022 (DFAT Report).
^[13] As above.
^[14] US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Fiji from 2021.
^[15] DFAT Report 3.39.
^[16] Fiji country brief | Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (dfat.gov.au)
^[17] As above.
^[18] [References deleted]
^[19] https://www.fiji.gov.fj/Media-Centre/Speeches/English/PRIME-MINISTER-HONOURABLE-SITIVENI-RABUKA%E2%80%99S-INAUGU (accessed 15 February 2023); https://www.foreignaffairs.gov.fj/prime-minister-sitiveni-rabukas-speech-at-the-post-cabinet-press-conference/ (accessed 15 February 2023)
^[20] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33