An Australian tribunal has ruled in favor of a Fijian national who was seeking a protection visa, stating that his past criminal conviction should not prevent him from being protected against potential harm if he were to be returned to Fiji. The decision, handed down on November 27, 2025, by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal of Australia, overturned a previous denial by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship regarding the Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa for the 32-year-old individual, referred to in the ruling as MPGJ.
The tribunal noted the applicant’s conviction in New South Wales for sexual intercourse without consent but assessed that he presented only a minimal or remote risk of reoffending. His sentencing included a non-custodial three-year Community Corrections Order, with the judge indicating that the nature of the offense was significantly less severe than other similar cases.
Moreover, the tribunal confirmed that the applicant successfully met the character test outlined in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, highlighting no previous criminal history in either Australia or Fiji. A background check by the Fiji Police Force corroborated his clean record.
A key factor in the tribunal’s decision was Australia’s commitment to international protection obligations. The tribunal concluded that there was a genuine risk of harm for the applicant if he were sent back to Fiji, thereby triggering Australia’s non-refoulement obligation under international law.
Evidence presented showed a solid potential for rehabilitation, which included psychological assessments, completion of counseling and rehabilitation programs, and ongoing support from family, community, and stable employment and accommodation. The tribunal determined that the offence was committed during a period of emotional distress and did not reflect his true character.
The tribunal stated, “The risk of future criminal conduct is minimal or remote,” and ultimately decided that the earlier refusal to grant the protection visa on character grounds was unwarranted. This pivotal ruling effectively paves the way for the granting of the protection visa to the applicant, reaffirming a compassionate approach to international obligation and individual circumstances.
Leave a comment