1600878 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed he feared arrest and harm from Indonesian government and police due to his participation in demonstrations against government corruption and his experiences with bribery in his business dealings. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and evidence, including policy guidelines and country information assessments, in determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, thereby satisfying the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims, including allegations of past detentions and the risk of future harm, in light of the available evidence and relevant legal principles.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims regarding his fear of persecution were vague and lacked sufficient detail to establish a well-founded fear. While the applicant had provided some evidence of past detentions, the Tribunal found these instances did not demonstrate a pattern of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return. The applicant had also consented to the matter being determined on the papers, meaning the Tribunal made its decision based on the written evidence provided. The Tribunal applied the principles of refugee law and complementary protection, considering the applicant's personal circumstances against the backdrop of country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).