1507550 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a woman who had previously applied for such a visa in 1993. The applicant claimed she had a close bond with her son, who was a permanent resident in Australia, and that returning to Indonesia would cause economic and social dislocation. She also claimed to be stateless due to an expired Indonesian passport. Her second application, lodged in 2014, reiterated fears of returning to Indonesia alone, citing her age, vulnerability, lack of male support, and corruption within the Indonesian government, which she believed would prevent her from accessing services and protection.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, thereby satisfying the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thus satisfying the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act under complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to consider Ministerial Direction No. 56, relevant policy guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding her lack of male support and financial resources in Indonesia, but found that she had siblings in Indonesia and that her children in Australia provided her with financial support, which she was confident would continue. While acknowledging her stated fear of vulnerability due to age and potential criminal elements, and her desire to remain with her family in Australia, the Tribunal was not convinced by her assertions that she would be unable to subsist, obtain government services including healthcare, or that the police would not protect her. The Tribunal accepted that she may feel vulnerable and afraid to live in Indonesia without her children nearby, but ultimately found no real chance that she would suffer serious harm for any reason under the Refugees Convention or significant harm under the complementary protection provisions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted there was no suggestion that she satisfied the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act by being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a Protection visa.