1600031 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed he feared arrest and detention by the Indonesian government and police if returned to Indonesia due to his participation in demonstrations against government corruption. He also alleged he had been harmed in the past and did not believe the Indonesian authorities could or would protect him. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the applicant's credibility and whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The central legal issue before the AAT was the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims made in his protection visa application and at a hearing in May 2018, in light of policy guidelines and country information relevant to Indonesia. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant had established substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, he would suffer significant harm, as defined by sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the relevant Act.

The AAT Member, Mila Foster, concluded that the applicant was not a credible witness. While the applicant presented claims of attending anti-corruption demonstrations, being arrested and detained on two occasions, and fearing future persecution, the Tribunal found these claims lacked credibility. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.