Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Refugee Application No. 1822451

Geography
Year
2022
Document Type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2022
Status
Decided
Court/admin entity
Australia → Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Case category
Suits against governments → Human Rights → Climate migration
Principal law
Australia → Migration Act 1958Australia → Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
At issue
Whether the applicant meets the criterian to receive a preotection visa.

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
09/14/2022
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Decision

Summary

This case concerns a review application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, made on 23 July 2018, to refuse the applicant's request for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, applied for a protection visa on 15 April 2018, asserting fears based on political opinion due to an altercation with Fijian government officials in 2015 concerning bauxite mining operations affecting communal farmland, environmental degradation, and associated climate change impacts. During the Tribunal hearing on 19 September 2022, the applicant expressed concerns about the potential economic hardship and threats to subsistence due to the environmental impacts from mining and climate-related effects on agriculture and fisheries near his village. He also raised broader concerns about political corruption, police brutality, and general insecurity in Fiji, particularly if he returned as a failed asylum seeker. However, on 21 September 2022, the Tribunal, presided over by Member Genevieve Hamilton, affirmed the original decision not to grant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution on political grounds, noting that after the 2015 incident with government officials, he had not experienced further persecution or targeting. The Tribunal concluded the environmental and climate-change-related hardships, although genuinely challenging, did not amount to persecution or pose a real risk of significant harm as defined under the Migration Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis for Australia's protection obligations under either refugee or complementary protection criteria and affirmed the original refusal decision.