1509889 (Refugee)

The applicant, an ethnic Chinese Catholic from Indonesia, sought a Protection visa in Australia. His application was refused, and subsequent appeals to the Refugee Review Tribunal were unsuccessful. The applicant remained in Australia unlawfully for 12 years before lodging a further protection visa application, which was the subject of this decision. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, based on his ethnicity and religion. The Tribunal was required to consider this claim in light of section 48A of the Act, which generally bars further protection visa applications from individuals in the migration zone who have had a previous application refused. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims regarding potential loss of citizenship and difficulties in re-establishing himself in Indonesia.

The Tribunal reasoned that while communal violence and discrimination against ethnic Chinese and religious minorities had occurred in Indonesia, current country information, including a 2015 US State Department report and a June 2015 DFAT Country Information Report, did not indicate a general worsening of conditions for ethnic Chinese Indonesians or a heightened risk for Catholics. The Tribunal noted the ongoing blasphemy charges against the Governor of Jakarta, who is Chinese Indonesian and Christian, but concluded that the limited fatalities from related protests did not demonstrate a widespread or personal risk to the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant provided no evidence of past harm to himself or his family, nor did he demonstrate that his specific home area in East Java was subject to heightened religious or ethnic tensions. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of potential loss of citizenship or the inability to re-settle, noting he had previously held Indonesian citizenship and had adult siblings in Indonesia.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm due to his ethnicity or religion, nor that he would suffer significant harm from re-establishing himself or potential citizenship issues. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding he did not meet the criteria for complementary protection. The Tribunal also stated it would not be referring the matter for ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Act, but noted the applicant could make a direct request to the Minister.