1510515 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 824

1510515 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 824 (24 April 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1510515

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Indonesia

MEMBER:R Homan

DATE:24 April 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 24 April 2017 at 11:24am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Indonesia – Fear of harm from husband – Financial difficulties – Collapse of business – Credibility issues – False or misleading information

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36(2), 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c), 65
Migration Regulations 1998, Schedule 2

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 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who the Tribunal accepts is a citizen of Indonesia, applied for the visa [in] September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2015.

3. The issues in the review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia; and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Indonesia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

4. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.

6. 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. 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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment 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.

   Visa application

10. According to the information provided in her visa application, the applicant is an Indonesian national born in [year] in [Indonesia]. The applicant claimed to belong to the ‘Indonesian’ ethnic group and Islam religion. The applicant stated that she was married and provided details of a husband and [child] living in Indonesia. The applicant provided a single residential address in Indonesia between January 2004 and August 2014. The applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a [temporary] visa [in] August 2014.

11. The applicant described her occupation before coming to Australia as a small business owner. The applicant indicated that she ran a small business between 1988 and December 2009. From January 2010 onwards, the applicant was unemployed.

12. Submitted with the application was a copy of the applicant’s passport which contains visas and travel stamps for travel to [Country 1], [Country 2] and [Country 3] in April 2014.

    Claims for protection

13. The applicant claimed that she was seeking protection in Australia so that she would not have to go back to Indonesia. The applicant stated that her husband was a good man and had treated her and her [child] very well. This changed after the applicant’s business was closed and they lost their source of income. The applicant’s husband felt very stressed and started to treat the applicant terribly. The applicant’s husband drank every day and became very angry. The applicant’s husband hit the applicant with his fists many times. The applicant left Indonesia in order to avoid being harmed by him.

    Other material on DIBP file

14. Contained on the Department’s file is a copy of the applicant’s [temporary] visa application, made [in] July 2014. The applicant claimed in her [temporary] visa application to be employed as [occupation] for [business] in South Jakarta for the past six years. The applicant indicated that she wished to visit Australia to attend an [event]. The applicant provided a letter from her employer indicating that the applicant would be attending the [event] as the company’s delegate. Various business documents were submitted with the application.

15. Also contained on the Department’s file is an application for a [temporary] visa made by the applicant’s husband [in] August 2014. In his application, the applicant’s husband stated that he had been employed for one year and seven months as [occupation] by a [company]. The applicant’s husband claimed that he wished to attend an [event]. Submitted with the application were letters from the applicant’s husband’s employer stating that the applicant’s husband would be attending the [event] as their delegate. The applicant’s husband submitted employee tax calculation reports indicating that he received a monthly income of IDR[amount] (approximately AU$[amount]). Various other business documents for the applicant’s husband’s employer were submitted with the application. A copy of the applicant’s husband’s passport indicated that he also undertook travel to [Country 1], [Country 3] and [Country 2] in April 2014

    Delegate’s decision

16. The delegate’s decision record indicates that the applicant was invited to an interview but failed to attend. Australia Post records indicated that the invitation letter had been collected but the applicant had not made contact with the Department to explain her absence. The delegate formed the view that the applicant could relocate within Indonesia and that relocation would be a safe and reasonable option. The delegate also found that Indonesia had a reasonably effective and impartial police and justice system. The delegate found that the applicant could seek state protection if she was to return to Indonesia and was threatened by her husband in any way.

    Review application

17. The applicant submitted no additional evidence to the Tribunal prior to hearing.

    Tribunal hearing

18. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on 7 April 2017. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages.

19. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant why she had not attended the departmental interview. The applicant responded saying that she had attended the Department to provide her biometric data. The applicant said she did not recall receiving any further invitation. The applicant claimed that the PO Box address that she had used in her applications to the Department and the Tribunal was shared with another friend.

20. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had two [children] born in [years] respectively. The applicant said [one child] was married and had a young child, which was why she had not mentioned [him/her] in the visa application forms. [Another child] was still a student at [school]. The applicant said her [children] lived in the same household [in] East Java and that her husband also sometimes resided in the same household.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her overseas travel prior to her arrival in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that in April 2014 she had spent brief periods of time in [Country 2], [Location 1] and [Country 1] on her way to [Country 3]. The applicant said that the purpose of the travel was for a holiday. Asked whether she travelled alone or with any other person, the applicant said she had travelled with a few friends. The Tribunal asked the applicant specifically whether anyone in her family had travelled with her. The applicant said that she was still with her husband at the time and that he had also travelled.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her employment history. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had run a small business until the business became bankrupt. The applicant stated that her business was called [name] and was involved in [a certain industry]. The applicant said she became involved in the industry through a friend who sold her the business.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her business became bankrupt. The applicant said that the [supplier] from which she had purchased materials ran out. The applicant then found a new supply [and] trusted another person to do the quality control. The first few deliveries were fine but later on the applicant realised that the person she had trusted and the owner of the [supplier] were working together against the applicant and that a lot of waste materials were being included in her deliveries. The applicant’s husband discovered that the percentage of [materials] in one of the shipments was very low and this affected the sale of the material. The business made a loss but not particularly large loss. On a second occasion, the business was unable to obtain payment for the shipment at all and had to pay to reload the [materials] and send them back to the [supplier]. The applicant was unable to find a new supplier and the business collapsed financially. The applicant told the Tribunal that the business was owned by and her husband alone and they had no business partners. The applicant told Tribunal that they started to have financial difficulties around 2012 or 2013 but their financial difficulties became serious and they found themselves bankrupt by 2014. The applicant clarified that there had not been any legal proceedings to have her declared bankrupt but the business simply collapsed. The applicant’s home was mortgaged and she and her husband were unable to make repayments. The bank notified the applicant that it intended to auction her home. The applicant and her husband had also taken out loans from private lenders which they were unable to repay.

24. The applicant confirmed that her [children] were still living in the home which had been mortgaged. The Tribunal sought clarification as to how they had been able to remain in the home if the applicant and her husband had defaulted on the loan repayments and the bank had told them that it would be auctioned. The applicant told Tribunal that notice had only been received that the house would be auctioned in 2016. The applicant told the Tribunal that her mother lived only [distance] away in the same village and that her [children] would go to live with her if the bank found a buyer for their home.

25. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her evidence indicated that by 2014 she and her husband were having serious financial difficulties yet her passport showed that she travelled to [Country 1], [Country 2], [Location 1] and [Country 3] in April 2014 for a holiday. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had travelled to [Country 3] looking for business opportunities. The applicant had travelled with 2 to 4 other people and had only passed through [Country 2], [Country 1] and [Location 1] on the way to [Country 3]. The applicant had intended to look for [products] in [Country 3] which could be sold as a small business in Indonesia. The Tribunal asked the applicant how she was able to afford the travel. The applicant told the Tribunal that after the [business] collapsed, she and her husband had started [another] [business]. The applicant said she had still been receiving some income from this business and had been selling her possessions. The applicant said the [other] business later collapsed after one of the [property] was stolen.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she started having difficulties with her husband, noting that her evidence had been that her husband had been a good man and had treated well for most of their marriage. In April 2014, the applicant had travelled with her husband overseas yet, by August 2014, the applicant had arrived in Australia allegedly to escape harm from him. The applicant said she started having trouble with her husband in June. The applicant said he began hitting her and she escaped to a relative’s place in Lampung, Sumatra. The applicant’s husband found out where she was afterwards and threatened to kill her, so the applicant moved to Jakarta.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant what led her to leave the family home and go to Sumatra. The applicant said that after she began experiencing problems with her husband she asked for divorce. The applicant’s husband threatened to kill her. The Tribunal asked the applicant for more information about what happened. The applicant said he that her husband wanted to kill her and knew that she was in Lampung so she had gone to stay with a friend in Jakarta. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it would like more detail about what happened between her and her husband between April 2014 and her departure from Indonesia in August 2014. The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband was actually a really nice person. The applicant said they had run a business together and travelled to [Country 3] together. They had been expecting to start a business selling the products they bought from [Country 3] but there was no way out of their financial difficulties. Every day someone was calling from the bank had her husband became stressed, began to drink and would be very angry. The applicant became a scapegoat and could not calm her husband down. A few times the applicant’s husband punched her in the face until she bled. The applicant suggested to her husband that they should separate or divorce but he said that if the applicant divorced him he would kill her. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had never sought medical treatment for the injuries she received at the hands of her husband nor had she made a report to police. The applicant said she was embarrassed about what had happened.

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her husband knew that she had gone to Lampung. The applicant said that many people from her village lived in Lampung and she thought one of her relatives or neighbours may have told her husband. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her husband had been able to find her when she was in Jakarta. The applicant said he did not know that she had gone to Jakarta.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she last had contact with her husband. The applicant said that she had contact with her husband after coming to Australia. The applicant said she called him and told him that he she was in [a certain city] and asked him to look after the children. The applicant confirmed that she had no contact with her husband during the periods in which she was in Lampung and Jakarta.

30. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the nature of her relationship with her husband now, noting that she had been in Australia for almost 3 years. The applicant told the Tribunal that she was in contact with her children and sometimes asked them about their father. The applicant said that it was her understanding that her husband was not currently working or operating any business. The applicant said she believed that her husband was living primarily with his [sibling] who lived in the same village but sometimes visited the children. The applicant said she had not considered obtaining a divorce as she felt safe in Australia and was not thinking of remarrying. The applicant said she just wanted to be able to support her [child]’s education.

31. The Tribunal asked the applicant why her [children] were no longer living with their father. The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband was unable to support the children financially and so [one child] had gone to live with [the sibling] and [spouse]. The applicant told the Tribunal that she was sending money to her children from Australia and that [one child]’s [spouse] worked.

32. The Tribunal asked the applicant what she thought may happen if she returned to Indonesia. The applicant said that if she returned to Indonesia and asked her husband for a divorce he would kill her. The applicant said she had seen many cases on Facebook where a wife had been killed by her husband in Indonesia. The Tribunal put to the applicant that she had been living apart from her husband for almost 3 years. The applicant’s evidence indicated that for the majority of her marriage her husband had been a good man and treated her well, apart from a brief period in which he appeared to have been drinking and had become violent in 2014. In these circumstances, it was not clear that there would still be a real chance or risk of him harming her. The applicant responded that her husband’s financial situation was still bad and that he would still harm her.

33. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that Australia would only owe her protection obligations if there was no part of Indonesia in which she could safely and reasonably reside. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s husband had not been able to locate her whilst she was in Jakarta and Jakarta was a city of almost 10,000,000 people. This did not suggest that there would now be a real chance or risk of her husband harming her if the applicant were to return to Jakarta.

34. The applicant said that she had only been in Jakarta for a short period of time and they had a lot of mutual friends. The applicant suggested that the children may eventually tell her husband where she was. The applicant said her children only had a vague understanding of what was going on and would find it hard to keep her location secret. The applicant said she had been told by her friend that her husband had attempted to come to Australia looking for her.

35. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her [temporary] visa application had been made and asked whether anyone had assisted with the application. The applicant told the Tribunal that a friend had helped her. Asked who the friend was, the applicant then said a friend of a friend had helped her. The Tribunal asked the applicant who the friend of the friend was. The applicant said she only knew him as [name]. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had sought the help of this particular person. The applicant said she had told the story to her friend who told the story to her other friend who happened to be a travel agent. The applicant said that both her friend and the agent were located in Jakarta. The Tribunal asked the applicant in what way the agent had helped her with the visa application. The applicant said she had provided her identity documents and was going to attend a seminar in [City 1]. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she did in fact attend the seminar. The applicant responded that she did.

1. The Tribunal showed the applicant the form which had been submitted with her [temporary] visa application and asked the applicant whether the signature appearing on the form was hers. The applicant said it was similar but denied having signed the form.

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, particulars of information contained in her [temporary] visa application. The Tribunal explained that the [temporary] visa application indicated that the applicant had been employed as [occupation] for a company in Jakarta for six years prior to making the application and had been invited to attend a seminar in Australia as the delegate of the company. The Tribunal noted that the visa application included letters from the applicant’s claimed employer, and a letter of invitation from the seminar organisers, as well as business documents for the claimed employer. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the information was relevant as it was different to the evidence the applicant had provided in her protection visa application in relation to her employment history. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that if it relied on the information it may as a consequence not be satisfied that she had provided truthful evidence in either the [temporary] visa application or the protection visa application and may form an adverse view as to her credibility generally. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that she could ask for additional time and invited her to comment on or respond to the information.

3. The applicant elected to respond immediately and told the Tribunal that she did not know what documents had been provided in relation to the [temporary] visa application. The applicant stated that she had been assisted by the agent and had only supplied her identification documents. The applicant said she was told by the agent to tell immigration officials in Australia that she was in Australia to attend a seminar in [City 1]. The applicant said she did not sign the visa application form and did not know the contents of the [temporary] visa application. The applicant said she simply provided her identification and paid for the visa and the airline ticket.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she thought she was told to say that she was in Australia to attend a seminar in [City 1]. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had just wanted to gain entry to Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she knew that false information had been provided in the [temporary] visa application. The applicant repeated that her only purpose was to enter Australia.

5. The Tribunal also put to the applicant pursuant to s.424AA, particulars of information contained in the [temporary] visa application made by her husband in August 2014. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that her husband had made the [temporary] visa application soon after the applicant had arrived in Australia and that the application was strikingly similar to the applicant’s [temporary] visa application. The Tribunal explained that the [temporary] visa application indicated that her husband had been employed by a company in Jakarta as [occupation] and had wished to visit Australia in order to attend a conference. The visa application was supported by letters and business documents from the applicant’s husband’s claimed employer, as well as a letter of invitation from the conference organisers. The Tribunal noted that the signature appearing on the visa application form appeared to have been made using the same pen as that used in the applicant’s own [temporary] visa application. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the information was relevant as the similarities between her and her husband’s [temporary] visa applications suggested that they may have used the same agent. The timing of her husband’s [temporary] visa application, being so close to the applicant’s own, suggested that they may have both intended to travel to Australia in the same way. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that if it relied on the information it may, as a consequence, find that the applicant had not provided truthful information regarding her relationship with her husband and affirm the decision under review.

6. The applicant again elected to respond immediately and said that she had heard that her husband had made a visa application which had been refused. The applicant said that she did not know what had happened to her own application or who it had been passed onto. The applicant said that she and her husband had mutual friends and so he may have used the same agent. The Tribunal noted that it seemed a coincidence that the husband’s application was made so soon after her own given that the applicant had claimed not to have been in contact with her husband at the time. The applicant suggested that her children may have told him that she had gone to Australia.

7. The Tribunal summarised for the applicant its concerns relating to her evidence. The Tribunal noted that the information contained in the applicant’s [temporary] visa application contradicted the information contained in her protection visa application. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the similarities between her and her husband’s [temporary] visa applications suggested that they had used the same agent and may have planned to come to Australia in the same way. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that her evidence regarding the problems she had with her husband had remained vague despite repeated prompting for more detail by the Tribunal. The Tribunal explained that it had little information before it as to the reasons why the applicant decided to leave her family home apart from the applicant’s bare claim that she had been punched several times in the face by her husband. The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that even if it accepted that she had been harmed by her husband in the past, the Tribunal still had difficulty accepting that there was now a real chance or risk of her husband harming her given that her relationship with her husband had been good for most of her marriage; that her husband had developed a drinking problem and had been violent only for a brief period of time in 2014; the applicant’s husband had been unable to find her in Jakarta; and it had now been three years since she had seen him. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already provided evidence in relation to each of these issues in the course of the hearing but asked the applicant whether there was anything more she would like to say in relation to any of the issues.

8. The applicant told the Tribunal that she could obtain further documentary evidence relating to her debts, the repossession of her home and a police report regarding the theft of her car. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it was not particularly concerned about those issues and was prepared to accept that the applicant had experienced financial difficulties in Indonesia. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was more concerned about whether the evidence the applicant had presented about the nature of her relationship with her husband was true. The applicant repeated her evidence that she and her husband may have used the same agent to apply for [temporary] visas as they had the same friends. The applicant said she did not know what was in her [temporary] visa application and had just passed on the documents. The applicant insisted that her financial problems were real and that what she had said was true. The applicant said she had left Indonesia to escape her husband’s violence and not because of her debts. The applicant said her husband had become very temperamental because of their financial problems. The applicant suggested that if it would strengthen her case she would apply for a divorce but said she had not done so earlier as she had already built a family, had children and grandchildren and was not interested in having another partner. The applicant said she just wanted to concentrate on raising her younger child and enabling [the child] to complete [his/her] studies.

   Post-hearing submissions

9. On 10 April 2017, the Tribunal received additional evidence from the applicant comprising,

   ·An untranslated small business licence, dated [in] September 2010, in the applicant’s name for a business, [name].

   ·An untranslated police report made by the applicant’s husband [in] May 2014, regarding a case of [crime] in 2013.

   ·An untranslated letter from Bank [name], dated [in] March 2015, addressed to the applicant, regarding the repossession and auction of her home [in] April 2015.

   ·An advertisement for the sale of the applicant’s home by auction [in] April 2015.

   Findings and reasons

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has provided partly truthful evidence regarding the financial difficulties she experienced in Indonesia.

11. The applicant was able to provide detailed and specific oral evidence regarding the nature of the small business she claimed to have run and the reasons for its collapse. The applicant has also submitted a business licence which is consistent with her oral evidence. The Tribunal notes, however, that the business licence submitted to the Tribunal was issued in September 2010, whereas the information given in the visa application form indicated that the applicant ran a small business until December 2009 and was unemployed after that date.

12. The Tribunal is prepared to accept based on the oral evidence that the applicant later ran another small business in which she hired out [equipment]. On the basis of the police report provided to the Tribunal after the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that one of the [equipment] was stolen and that this may have led to the collapse of the applicant’s second business.

13. The Tribunal also accepts on the oral and documentary evidence that as a consequence of her financial difficulties, the applicant’s home was repossessed and advertised for auction. There does, however, remain some question in the Tribunal’s mind as to why the applicant’s [children] remain in that home given that the auction was scheduled to take place in April 2015. The dates on the documentary evidence submitted after the hearing also contradict the applicant’s oral evidence that she received notice that the house would be auctioned in 2016.

14. Despites these anomalies in the evidence, the Tribunal accepts overall that the applicant and her family experienced financial difficulties both before and after the applicant’s departure from Indonesia.

15. The Tribunal does, however, have significant concerns regarding the applicant’s general credibility. The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided or caused to be provided, false or misleading information in her [temporary] visa application with regard to her employment and purpose for travelling to Australia. Although the applicant has claimed that the application was prepared by an agent, that she had not signed the application and did not know its contents, the Tribunal finds that, at the very least, the applicant was careless as to the contents of the application. The Tribunal considers it more likely that the applicant was aware that the visa application contained false or misleading information even if she did not know the precise content of the information.

16. The Tribunal also remains seriously concerned about the similarities between applicant’s [temporary] visa application and that made by her husband shortly after the applicant’s arrival in Australia. The Tribunal finds the similarities between the two applications are so pervasive that the Tribunal is satisfied that they were made with the assistance of the same agent. The applicant has suggested that it may be coincidence that she and her husband used the same agent as she was introduced to the agent through a friend of a friend and that she and her husband shared the same friends. Whilst this explanation is on its face plausible, the close timing between the two applications strongly suggests to the Tribunal that the applicant and her husband planned to travel to Australia in the same way.

17. The applicant’s passport indicates that only four months prior to her arrival in Australia, the applicant undertook international travel to [Country 1], [Country 2], [Location 1] and [Country 3]. Towards the beginning of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that the purpose of the travel was for a holiday. The applicant’s evidence was evasive when asked about whether she had any travel companions. Only after direct questioning from the Tribunal did the applicant reveal that she had also travelled with her husband. Later in the hearing, the applicant changed her evidence to state that the purpose of the trip had been for business. The applicant said that she and her husband had been exploring business opportunities and looking for products from [Country 3] to sell in Indonesia. The contradictions in the applicant’s evidence in relation to this issue and the evasive nature of her responses to the Tribunal’s questioning add to the Tribunal’s credibility concerns.

18. The timing of the applicant’s travel also causes the Tribunal to question whether the applicant has provided truthful evidence regarding the extent of the financial difficulties she was experiencing in 2014. The applicant’s evidence indicated that by June 2014, her financial problems were so severe that her husband, who had otherwise treated her well and had been non-violent for the duration of the marriage, had started drinking and become physically violent. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it difficult to comprehend how the applicant was able to afford a trip to [Country 1], [Country 2], [Location 1] and [Country 3] in April 2014 and travel to Australia in August 2014.

19. The applicant has claimed that she only started to experience difficulties with her husband in June 2014. Two months later, the applicant had arrived in Australia. Despite repeated prompting from the Tribunal, the applicant’s oral evidence regarding the breakdown of her relationship and incidences of violence remained vague and non-specific. The applicant’s evidence lacked contextual detail and is unsupported by any documentary evidence such as photographs, witness statements, evidence of travel to Lampung or Jakarta or police or medical reports, although the Tribunal does note that the applicant claims that she was too embarrassed to seek help from a doctor or police.

20. The combined effect of these features in the applicant’s evidence is that the Tribunal remains unsatisfied that the applicant has provided truthful evidence regarding the nature of her relationship with her husband. The Tribunal remains unsatisfied that the applicant was physically assaulted or threatened by her husband. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant asked her husband for a divorce or was separated from him. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s husband threatened to kill her or that she travelled to Lampung or Jakarta to escape from him. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine fear of harm from husband at the time of her departure from Indonesia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a genuine fear of harm from her husband at the time of this decision.

21. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk that the applicant would be seriously or significantly harmed by her husband, should she return to Indonesia now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

22. The applicant has not claimed to fear harm in Indonesia on any other basis.

23. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

24. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

25. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    R Homan
    Member