1600050 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by the applicant, with the second and third named applicants also seeking protection. The applicant claimed to be at risk of harm in Indonesia due to disputes arising from his involvement with a religious tour operator, including allegations of embezzlement, threats from disgruntled customers and debt collectors, and adverse attention from the Indonesian police. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant and his family members met the criteria for a protection visa, considering the evidence presented and relevant policy guidelines.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether he, and by extension the other applicants, faced a real risk of significant harm amounting to persecution in Indonesia. This involved assessing inconsistencies in the applicant's account, the validity of a s.438 certificate, and the weight to be given to various pieces of evidence, including a police summons. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act, which allows for the grant of a visa if a person faces a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal found the s.438 certificate invalid, as it did not sufficiently articulate the public interest grounds for non-disclosure, referencing established case law on public interest immunity. Upon reviewing the applicant's evidence, including a police summons, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims were not credible. It found no satisfactory evidence that the applicant was of adverse interest to any individuals or groups in Indonesia, nor that he or his family members faced threats from debt collectors, disgruntled pilgrims, or the police. The Tribunal determined that the applicant had manufactured his claimed dispute and that the police investigation mentioned in the summons was not demonstrably linked to his asserted persecution claims.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant or the second and third named applicants faced a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution in Indonesia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants' profile in Indonesia was that of ordinary citizens and that their claims lacked credibility.