1601327 (Refugee)

1601327 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3697 (16 August 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1601327
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Indonesia
MEMBER:Frances Simmons
DATE:16 August 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 16 August 2018 at 5:02pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Indonesia – Race – Ethnic Chinese – Religion – Buddhist – Political opinion – Attended demonstrations against corruption – Fear of police – Detention – Torture – Credibility issues – Inconsistent evidence – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 January 2016 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).The applicants, who are citizens of Indonesia, applied for the visa on 8 September 2015. The delegate was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations to the applicants.
The applicants were invited to a hearing before the Tribunal on 27 June 2018. [The applicant], who is of Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith, appeared before the Tribunal. He claimed he would face harm because of his involvement in anti-corruption demonstrations in Indonesia. He also claimed that he may face harm because of his Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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, he or she 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.
Section 36(2)(a) of the Act 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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1) of the Act, a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)–(6) and ss.5K–LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade[1] expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence to the Department
[1] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017.
Background
[The applicant] is of Chinese ethnicity and the Buddhist faith. He speaks, reads and writes Indonesian and English. He married [his wife] in Indonesia [in] February 2007. He travelled to Australia [in] June 2015 holding a valid Indonesian passport issued [in] 2014.
According to his application, [the applicant] lived at the same address in Jakarta between [year] and June 2015. Between July 2011 and May 2015 he held a position at a company where his duties involved [specified duties]. He has never been charged or convicted of a crime.
[The applicant’s wife] is also of Chinese ethnicity and the Buddhist faith. She is a housewife. She travelled to Australia with [the applicant] [in] June 2015. She did not make her own claims for protection. The applicants have [children] in Indonesia.
Claims
In his protection visa application [the applicant] claims that:
I left Indonesia in order to avoid a risk of being harmed and arrested by the Indonesia Government. Indonesia government intend to arrest me because I attended demonstrations against government corruption. Corruption is a serious problem in Indonesia. As Indonesians we must bribe those government officers, otherwise they will put us into trouble. In July 2012 I was arrested and detained for one week because I attended a demonstration against government corruption. In April 2015 I attended another demonstration against government corruption. I saw riot police. I run away. I believe the Indonesia Government and police want to arrest me.
[The applicant] claims that if he returns to Indonesia ‘the Indonesia Government and police’ will arrest him. He did not seek help within Indonesia because he believes no one can help him. The government intends to arrest him because he attended demonstrations against government corruption. He did not try to relocate within Indonesia as there are no safe places for him. He believes the authorities will harm him and arrest him if he returns.
[The applicant] attended an interview with the Department on 4 December 2015, a recording of which the Tribunal has listened to.
Asked to state his protection claims, [the applicant] said he had participated in demonstrations, mostly about corruption. He was just a participant in demonstrations but he would ask his friends to join. He claims he was arrested and detained for one week when he attended a demonstration about corruption. He was unsure about the date of his arrest but thought it occurred [in a range of dates in] July 2012 and that he was released from police custody on [a specific date in] July 2012. He had never been arrested before.
[The applicant] stated at the time of his arrest at the demonstration some of his friends damaged fences and a traffic light. The police arrested around [number] people including those who damaged the property. He did not damage property but he was arrested. The police thought he was an organiser of the demonstration and investigated him. While he was detained he was hit and slapped. It was found out he was not involved and he was released. He was told not to demonstrate anymore.
[The applicant] was asked why people demonstrated on [the date in] April 2015. He thought that the demonstration was about the situation in West Papua and that it had nothing to do with corruption. He was referred to his written claims, which state that the demonstration in April 2015 was a demonstration against corruption. He responded that he told his friend about the Papua Barat demonstration and his friend told him not to worry.
[The applicant] stated he had studied for two years at university ([specified years]) but did not graduate. He became involved in issues related to labourers and he subsequently suggested he was connected to the labour movement. If they did not agree with the government, they would organise demonstrations. He did not include this information in his application as he did not graduate from university and did not think it was important.
Asked why the authorities would still be interested in him after he was released from detention in 2012, [the applicant] stated that the government threaten whole families and as a parent this caused him concern. He was asked to clarify whether his family had been threatened or he feared this. He said it had never happened and this was one reason he moved from place to place.
[The applicant] claimed if he returned to Indonesia he would be arrested and it would be serious. He had been detained once, they knew he had participated in demonstrations and they targeted him. He said that the government was tricky; on one hand they could say it was legal, and on the other hand they could ask the police to make it illegal. His concern is that the government would threaten him. He stated he will participate in other demonstrations.
Evidence to the Tribunal
[The applicant] attended the hearing alone. [The applicant] confirmed that [his wife] had not made her own claims for protection, but had applied for the visa on the basis that she was a member of his family unit. [The applicant] told the Tribunal the information he had provided to the Department was correct. He reiterated his claims that he would face harm because he participated in anti-corruption demonstrations. He also raised concerns that he might face racism because of his Chinese ethnicity and he might be harmed because of his Buddhist faith. He told the Tribunal the law was not strong enough to protect minorities.
[The applicant] was questioned about his involvement in protests in Indonesia, his views about corruption in Indonesia, his claims he was arrested and detained in 2012, his claims that he was in hiding after he was released from detention in 2012, his claims he attended another protest in 2015, his motivations for travelling to Australia, what he believed would happen if he returned to Indonesia, and who he is afraid of in Indonesia. [The applicant] was put on notice that the credibility of his claims was in issue before the Tribunal. He was also invited to comment on country information that was relevant to his claims. Where relevant his evidence and the country information are discussed further below in the assessment of claims and evidence.
ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal accepts the applicants are citizens of Indonesia and that they are who they claim to be. The Tribunal accepts that they are married and that [the applicant’s wife] is a member of [the applicant’s] family unit.
In determining whether the applicant is entitled to protection in Australia, it is necessary to make findings of facts on relevant matters. In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal accepts that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims[2] and it has had regard to the Tribunal’s guidelines on the assessment of credibility in protection visa matters. If the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true.[3] However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[4]
[2] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 2011 at paragraph 196.
[3] MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220.
[4] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J; and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
Background
The Tribunal finds that [the applicant] is an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith. The Tribunal accepts, based on [the applicant’s] evidence, that [the applicant] was employed at a [service] company in Jakarta from 2011 to 2015.
The Tribunal finds that [the applicant] travelled to Australia with his wife, [named], an Indonesian citizen of Buddhist faith and Chinese ethnicity. The couple have [number] children and their children remained in Jakarta with [the applicant’s wife’s] parents. [The applicant’s] KTP (residential identity card) records the address he provided in his protection visa application. The Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] and his wife lived at a different address (an apartment owned by his parents-in-law) with their children in the months before they travelled to Australia.
The Tribunal finds, based on [the applicant’s] evidence, that he has now repaid the money he borrowed to travel to Australia.
Claims he will be harmed because he participated in anti-corruption demonstrations
The Tribunal has considered the evidence [the applicant] has given to the Department and the Tribunal about his involvement in anti-corruption demonstrations. [The applicant] told the Tribunal that he could not remember how many times he personally participated in protests, but said that it was quite often. He claimed he was arrested in 2012 and then he was too afraid to join again. He claimed that the only protest he attended after 2012 was in 2015. He said he thought this protest was about corruption but was actually about West Papua. He did not claim to have any interest in protesting about West Papua but told the Tribunal that he stayed at the protest until he saw the police and then he ran away. [The applicant] told the Tribunal that he is not a formal member of any party but he supports those who are not corrupt such as President Widodo. He did not claim to be a political leader or high-profile activist.
The Tribunal asked whether he was involved in organising demonstrations or in any particular political movements. [The applicant] said yes, but not anymore. Asked what groups or organisations he was involved with, he said he was in the university student organisation. Asked whether this was about labour rights, he said it was about what they thought was wrong with the government. He gave evidence that he was at university in [year] but he didn’t finish and left in [a later year] to work as [a different occupation]. In 2007 he travelled to [Country 1], and then returned to Jakarta where he worked at the same [service] company between 2011 and 2015.
The Tribunal has concerns about the credibility of [the applicant’s] claims that he is at risk of harm because he participated in anti-corruption demonstrations.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that [the applicant], like many Indonesians, holds concerns about the high level of corruption in Indonesia. While Indonesian law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, and the judiciary generally tries to implement the law, elements within the government, judiciary and security forces have sought to undermine efforts to prosecute corruption.[5] As the Tribunal put to [the applicant], protests occur regularly (even daily) throughout Indonesia, including in Jakarta.[6] When it was put to [the applicant] that many of these protests focus on government corruption,[7] [the applicant] agreed but added the number of protests has decreased since Jokowi (President Joko Widodo) came to power in 2014 as Jokowi was determined to eradicate corruption and the situation has improved since his election. [The applicant] said nowadays demonstrations are held by his political opponents. He was concerned about corruption by the former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) and, while he believes the situation has improved since the election of President Widodo, SBY and other corrupt officials have not been held accountable for their actions.
[5] US Department of State 2017, ‘Indonesia 2016 Human Rights Report’, 3 March, OGD95BE926854, p.1.
[6] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017; US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council 2013, ‘Indonesia 2013 Crime and Safety Report: Jakarta’, 7 February, < <CIS36DE0BB1933>, p.5; US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council 2018, ‘Indonesia 2018 Crime and Safety Report: Jakarta’, 25 June, <CIS7B839411602>.
[7] Muryanto, B 2012, ‘Nationwide protests in support of KPK’, The Jakarta Post, 9 October, <>
As the Tribunal put to [the applicant] that country information indicates demonstrations are legal with a permit and protests are tolerated and generally peaceful[8] (although the situation is different with respect to Papua-related protests and demonstrations about certain politically sensitive issues).[9] Protests and demonstrations can turn violent and that in response to such violence police have used water cannons, tear gas and on occasion arrested those inciting violence.[10] However, the evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest that police or other authorities target individuals who participate in demonstrations against corruption, including those who participate in multiple demonstrations, by arresting, detaining and mistreating them after the conclusion of peaceful demonstrations.
[8] US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council 2013, ‘Indonesia 2013 Crime and Safety Report: Jakarta’, 7 February, < <CIS36DE0BB1933>, p.5; US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council 2013, ‘Indonesia 2013 Crime and Safety Report: Surabaya’, 4 April, < <CIS36DE0BB1934>, pp.5–6.
[9] US Department of State 2018, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 – Indonesia’, 20 April, OGD95BE927313.
[10] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017; ‘Protests greet Indonesia Bank Century hearing’ 2010, BBC News, 2 March, < < CX744258517024>; ‘Indonesia protesters, police clash over US$724m bank bailout’ 2010, The Brunei Times, 3 March, <CX744258517026>.
[The applicant] told the Tribunal that the image the government wants to show other countries in reality isn’t so. Protestors could be arbitrarily kidnapped, tortured and detained but this was not widely known. The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that every day in Jakarta and throughout Indonesia there were multiple demonstrations in front of the Hotel Jakarta traffic circle and US embassy among other places.[11] The Tribunal acknowledges that participants in assemblies in support of minority groups or to address certain sensitive political topics intimidation or violence from a combination of hard-line vigilantes and police do exist.[12] However, as discussed with [the applicant], corruption is not identified as a politically sensitive topic about which protests are regularly dispersed; on the contrary, as noted above, protests against corruption are common.
[11] US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council 2018, ‘Indonesia 2018 Crime and Safety Report: Jakarta’, 25 June, <CIS7B839411602>.
[12] ‘Freedom in the World 2017 – Indonesia’, Freedom House, NG2A465F5101 (noting freedom of assembly is usually upheld and peaceful protests are common in the capital. However, assemblies in support of minority groups or to address sensitive political topics – such as Gestapu and Indonesia’s leftist past, women’s rights or regional separatism – are regularly dispersed, with participants facing intimidation or violence from a combination of hard-line vigilantes and police.)

The Tribunal put to [the applicant] that in light of country information that demonstrations in Indonesia are regular occurrences and generally tolerated and that it was legal to protest with a permit, it was difficult to understand why he would be of ongoing interest to the police or anyone else in Indonesia for reasons relating to his participation in an anti-corruption demonstration in 2012. The Tribunal has considered [the applicant’s] evidence about the circumstances of his claimed arrest and detention in 2012. [The applicant] gave evidence they had a permit for demonstration, and his arrest related to the property damage. He told the Tribunal 200-300 people attended a demonstration in front of the parliament house. At a pre-demonstration briefing they were told that after one or two hours they are going to make some trouble such as damaging property (gates, fences, traffic lights). He didn’t participate in causing damage but he claimed he was arrested along with 12 to 15 other people before being released around a week later.
However, while it is plausible that protestors might be arrested for property damage, the Tribunal was concerned that [the applicant’s] account of his arrest and detention has shifted over time and that he has not credibly explained why he was ongoing interest to anyone in Indonesia because he participated in an anti-corruption demonstrations in 2012. Before the Tribunal he claimed that after he was arrested in 2012 he was tortured and questioned by people who were ‘not the police’ but people who the police handed him to. Asked what he meant when he said he was tortured, he said that he was beaten up, his head was plunged into water, his hands were held, he was stripped naked. [The applicant] acknowledged he only mentioned these details about his mistreatment to the Tribunal. Asked if there was a reason he did not mention these details to the delegate, he said that he didn’t want to tell the delegate the details, but now he had to tell the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered this response but remains concerned that his evidence about his detention has shifted over time and does not explain why he would be of ongoing interest to anyone in Indonesia in the years after his release. Asked what happened to the 12 or 15 people he was arrested with, his response was vague. He told the Tribunal he thought that they faced ‘more or less the same treatment’ but he didn’t know for certain because they were in different rooms. He was not certain whether they were all released. The Tribunal noted his evidence was that they were his friends and asked if he knew what happened to them. He said one was released, one he didn’t know.
[The applicant] gave evidence that he was not involved in any demonstrations between 2012 and 2015 and then he participated in one demonstration in April 2015. However, whereas [the applicant’s] written claims state the demonstration he attended in 2015 was about corruption, he told the Tribunal the demonstration was about West Papua, but he went to the demonstration because he had been told it was about corruption. The Tribunal found [the applicant’s] evidence that he attended a protest about West Papua in 2015 in the mistaken belief that he was in fact going to a protest about corruption to be highly improbable and unconvincing. The Tribunal also questioned why [the applicant] decided to attend an anti-corruption demonstration in 2015 when he believed that the situation had improved since Jokowi was elected. [The applicant] said the Century scandal was still a hot topic and the demonstration was not against Jokowi but against SBY. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had credibly explained why, in the circumstances where he claims he had been warned against participating in demonstrations and had been moving from place to place because he feared harm since July 2012, he decided to attend an anti-corruption protest in April 2015 but accidentally attended a protest related to the situation in West Papua instead. The Tribunal notes that [the applicant] has given evidence that he thought the situation improved after the election of President Widodo, but this does not explain to the Tribunal why, in circumstances where he claims he stopped attending protests after July 2012 because he feared for his safety, he decided to attend a protest in April 2015.
[The applicant’s] evidence about who targeted him in Indonesia was also vague and has shifted over time. In his written claims [the applicant] stated he was afraid that the Indonesian government and police wanted to arrest him, but did not state he was afraid of non-state actors. Asked by the Tribunal what would happen if he returned to Jakarta, he said he would love to go back as his children were there but he was afraid he would be pursued again and this was why he moved from one place to another. [The applicant] was asked to be specific about who would harm him if he returned to Indonesia. He said that he participated in demonstrations against corruption and people who are corrupt have men like the police, but actually they are not [police], so when they have demonstrations which they think will endanger their positions they pay people to catch the demonstrators. He told the Tribunal that it was difficult to be specific about who was targeting him because it started from the top level with the former President SBY who was implicated in the Bank Century scandal, to the lower level and the bottom level, everyone was involved, but it has not been proven and it may not be proven in the near future. In response to further questions, he gave evidence that after he was arrested he was taken to a place outside of Jakarta and beaten by people who were working with the police (but not the police) before being released. Later, when asked how he was able to continue working at the same company and obtain a passport from the authorities in Jakarta in 2014, he told the Tribunal that his problem was not with the government but that he was worried that he would be pursued by the people who arrested him. Overall, the Tribunal considers [the applicant’s] claims about who he fears will harm him in Indonesia have shifted over time and this reflects poorly on his credibility.
The Tribunal finds not credible [the applicant’s] claims that he was moving from place to place to try and avoid the authorities (or anyone else). In his interview with the delegate and before the Tribunal [the applicant] claimed he was moving from place to place to avoid being harmed. [The applicant] claimed he lived in different places in Jakarta when he was hiding from persecution. He told the Tribunal that he moved three or four times within Jakarta: he had lived in [three specified locations]. [The applicant] estimated these places were about 45 minutes away from the [service] company where he worked, six days per week, between 2011 and 2015. However, as the Tribunal put to [the applicant], it is difficult to accept that he was trying to hide from anyone because his own evidence was that between 2011 and 2015 he was working six days a week at a [service] company in Jakarta. Furthermore, as put to [the applicant], Indonesia is a country of 258 million people, and 6,000 inhabitable islands.[13] It was put to [the applicant] that if he was concerned about being harmed, it was not clear why he didn’t relocate to another part of Indonesia.
[13] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017.
The Tribunal has considered the various explanations [the applicant] has provided in response to its concerns about the credibility of his claim that he was hiding between 2012 and 2015, but does not find them persuasive. [The applicant] suggested that his workplace was a small company owned by a friend and he thought it would be safe. He claimed that he didn’t move to another place as his friend who lived outside of Jakarta was arrested. He took his chances and stayed in Jakarta and moved from one place to another because he believed ‘they thought’ he had moved outside of Jakarta (asked on what basis he held that belief, he said he claimed he was told if he was ever arrested again, be prepared). He said maybe if he was arrested again he would not be released, maybe he would be killed.
The Tribunal considers that the fact that he was issued a passport by the Indonesian authorities [in] 2014 in Jakarta indicates the authorities knew he was in Jakarta. [The applicant] has said that this was how it appeared but he did not think the authorities were that sophisticated. He didn’t think they could track him down with information from Immigration. The Tribunal finds this response unconvincing. In the Tribunal’s view the fact that [the applicant] was able to obtain a passport in 2014 and live and work in Jakarta between 2011 and when he left Indonesia undermines his claims that he was of adverse interest to the authorities (or others working with the authorities) during this period. The Tribunal notes that when asked whether he had any problems with the authorities after he was released in July 2012, he said thankfully no. He claimed he was released with the condition that he would not participate in any demonstrations and he was threatened if he did he would be arrested.
However, as the Tribunal put to [the applicant], even if the Tribunal were to accept that he was arrested in July 2012, following his release he had continued to live in Jakarta and work six days a week at the [service] company. As the Tribunal put to [the applicant] it appeared nothing happened to him after he was released in July 2012 and this might suggest he was not of any ongoing interest to the police or to anyone else in Indonesia, as anyone who wanted to find him could have gone to his workplace. [The applicant] then said after 2012 he didn’t participate in demonstrations: that was why they were not looking for him but then when he participated in 2015 they started looking for him again. The Tribunal asked how he knew they started looking for him again. He said a few times he saw people in the street and he suspected they were following him so he ran away again. He said his problem was not with the government but he was worried that the people who arrested him would pursue him. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims that ‘they’ started looking for him again after he mistakenly attended a rally about Papua Barat in 2015 improbable and unconvincing.
The Tribunal considers the fact that [the applicant] was able to continue working at an office in Jakarta undermines his claims that the authorities or people acting on behalf of the authorities or anyone else was looking for him. Compounding the Tribunal’s concerns: [the applicant’s] written claims do not mention his claim that after July 2012 he moved from place to place to hide from the authorities or people who were looking for him. While this claim was raised in the interview with the delegate, the Tribunal is concerned that this claim was not made in his written claims and that the information he provided in his protection visa application indicates that he was living at one address between [year] and 2015. [The applicant] has sought to explain this by saying that the person who assisted him to complete his application advised him not to include this information. The Tribunal notes that in his protection visa application he was able to say he feared harm because he attended anti-corruption demonstrations and, in this context, is not satisfied that he has adequately explained why his application omits to mention that important information. Having regard to its concerns about the applicant’s evidence, set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that he was moving from place to place to avoid the authorities or anyone else.
[The applicant] told the Tribunal that he was traumatised and afraid; he left Indonesia because he was afraid they were closing in on him. The Tribunal raised with [the applicant] that he felt the situation had improved since the election of President Widodo. [The applicant] said the government is okay but President Widodo’s opponents have made plans so that he will not be re-elected in 2019 and that he heard from a friend that a significant disruption was planned. He suggested that something like the riots in 1998 could happen again; this might be planned by the leader of the opposition, Prabowo. [The applicant] acknowledged that some people wanted Jokowi to be elected again, but said his opponents would fight this. After discussing the country information report at paragraphs 32-34 with the applicant, it was put to [the applicant] that the country information indicated that people were able to express dissenting political views in Indonesia and it appeared he would be able to engage in protests about corruption if he returned to Indonesia if he wanted to do so.
[The applicant] told the Tribunal that if he had to return to Indonesia he couldn’t guarantee he would be safe. He said he has shaved his head because he hopes if he does go back he will not easily be found. However, as the Tribunal put to [the applicant], the fact he worked at the same office in Jakarta between 2011 and 2015 suggests that he was not hiding from anyone in Indonesia. [The applicant] asked the Tribunal why he would remain in Australia, away from his children, if he did not fear being harmed in Indonesia. The Tribunal observed that [the applicant] had given evidence he currently works in two different jobs and sends money home to his family. It was suggested to [the applicant] that his desire to support his family might explain why he wanted to remain in Australia. In response [the applicant] indicated it was his duty to support his family. The Tribunal acknowledges [the applicant’s] commitment to supporting his family and accepts that he would like to live in Australia with his wife and children. However, the determinative issue in this review is whether he is owed protection as a refugee or otherwise entitled to complementary protection.
The Tribunal has considered [the applicant’s] evidence that the political environment has changed but he is still traumatised and his claims that he had a friend who lived outside Jakarta but he had been arrested. Asked when his friend was arrested, he said he didn’t know, maybe in 2013; his friend was an activist like him and they hated activists. Elsewhere in the hearing [the applicant] referred to his friends being kidnapped and disappearing. However, the Tribunal found [the applicant’s] claims that his friends had been harmed to be vague and lacking in any meaningful particulars. Although [the applicant] said that he was arrested and detained with friends in 2012, he did not provide any details about what happened to these friends but said only that one had been released. His written claims do not refer to his friends being kidnapped or arrested and in oral evidence to the Tribunal he did not provide any meaningful details about the experiences of his friends.
Overall, the Tribunal found [the applicant’s] account of the problems he experienced in Indonesia because of his attendance at an anti-corruption demonstration has shifted over time and lacked persuasive detail. The Tribunal is concerned that important elements of [the applicant’s] evidence – such as whether he was of interest to the authorities or non-state actors – has shifted over time and that his claims that he was of ongoing interest to people in Indonesia because of his claimed participation in an anti-corruption protest in 2012 is not consistent with the available country information, which indicates that demonstrations against corruption are regular occurrences and generally tolerated (see above). Furthermore, his evidence that he was moving from place to place to avoid being harmed is undermined by his capacity to live and work in Jakarta up until the time he travelled to Australia.
For all the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is drawn to the conclusion that [the applicant] is not a credible witness. The Tribunal does not accept that he has told the truth about the reasons he left Indonesia and the reasons he does not want to return to Indonesia now. For the purpose of this decision, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that [the applicant] may have been enrolled in a university course in the late 1990s and that he did not finish this course. It is possible that as a student in the late 1990s [the applicant] may have participated in anti-government demonstrations organised by student movements. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he was involved in any political activity after he ceased attending university in the late 1990s. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he was ever a political organiser or that he had any involvement with the labour movement and rejects his claims that he was of adverse interest to people because of his participation in anti-corruption demonstrations.
The Tribunal does not accept that he was of adverse interest to anyone in Indonesia in the years before he travelled to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] was of adverse interest to the authorities or any other persons or groups at the time he left Indonesia. Having regard to its concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s evidence about participating in demonstrations in Indonesia in 2012 and 2015 or at any other time. Because the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] attended a demonstration in 2012, the Tribunal disbelieves his claims that he was arrested, detained, beaten and tortured and warned against participating in future demonstrations. The Tribunal disbelieves his claims that he had to go into hiding after he was released and that he was too afraid to attend demonstrations and that he has ‘activist’ friends who have disappeared or been kidnapped. The Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] was moving from place to place hiding between 2012 and 2015 or that he attended a protest in April 2015 as claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that [the applicant] was ever hiding from the authorities or anyone else in Indonesia or that he stopped attending demonstrations because he feared for his safety.
Looking forward, while the Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] may be critical of corrupt practices and officials in Indonesia, the Tribunal finds he believes the situation has improved under President Widodo. The Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] may hold concerns about corruption, but does not accept that these views have motivated him to take political action or attend demonstrations in the past. Having found that the applicant was not politically active in the past, the Tribunal does not accept that he would be motivated to attend protests against corruption (or any other subject) if he were to return to Indonesia now or the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] has been harmed in the past because of his political opinion and, on the evidence before it, finds that there is no real chance that he will face harm on this basis now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Claims that the applicant will face harm because of his Chinese ethnicity
At the hearing [the applicant] raised concerns he would face harm because of his Chinese ethnicity. Asked why he feared harm because of his Chinese ethnicity, [the applicant] told the Tribunal that he was afraid that the election in 2019 might lead to another riot and he was concerned about the safety of his children.
The Tribunal discussed with [the applicant] DFAT’s advice on the situation of people with Chinese ethnicity in Indonesia.[14] There are 2.8 million ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia about half of whom are of the Buddhist faith. In 1998 widespread riots (leading up to the fall of President Suharto) led to over 1,000 mostly ethnic Chinese being murdered. [The applicant] has not claimed that he or his family were personally caught up in these riots or that they have been personally harmed at any time for reasons related to their Chinese ethnicity. Furthermore, as discussed at the hearing, DFAT reports that since the end of the Suharto era the most discriminatory anti-Chinese aspects of Indonesian public policy have been dismantled. Chinese New Year is now celebrated as a national public holiday; Chinese cultural performances and language are encouraged; and the Constitution no longer differentiates between ethnic Chinese and ‘indigenous’ Indonesians.
[14] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017, pp.14–15.

The Tribunal accepts that, as discussed with [the applicant], anti-Chinese sentiment remains present at a societal level in Indonesia. Many Indonesians remain uneasy about Chinese Indonesians entering public life. In 2012, President Widodo faced strong criticism from conservative Islamist groups for running for Governor of Jakarta with a Chinese Indonesian (and Christian) running mate, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, popularly known as ‘Ahok’, who later succeeded him. Such groups used Ahok’s ethnic and religious background as a means to mobilise large crowds of demonstrators after accusing him of blasphemy in late 2016. Ahok was subsequently sentenced to two years for blasphemy.
The Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] is concerned by the treatment of Ahok, who is of Chinese ethnicity, and believes that this case illustrates that the law is not strong enough to protect minorities. However, with respect to [the applicant’s] personal experiences in Indonesia, it was put to him that he had been able to live and work in Jakarta for most of his life. [The applicant] said he had been lucky so far, they had been looking for him but they couldn’t find him, but he couldn’t guarantee if he went to Jakarta or another city he would be safe. The Tribunal asked why anyone would target him. He had been in Australia for three years and he was not a high-profile political activist or leader. [The applicant] said he was a nobody but he was traumatised because of what happened; he was afraid of going home, that something like the 1998 riots would happen to him and his family.
For the reasons that are set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that individuals or groups were ever looking for [the applicant] or that he is traumatised because he has been arrested and detained in the past. The Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] has been targeted by the authorities or any other persons or groups in the past because of his political opinion and/or because of his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal finds that [the applicant] has not personally experienced serious harm or significant harm because of his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal accepts DFAT’s advice which indicates that, while some historical biases against ethnic Chinese Indonesians persist, the situation has improved since 1998. The Tribunal accepts that ethnic Chinese are at low risk of official discrimination and, while occasional cases of prejudice persist, overall face low levels of societal discrimination.
Looking forward, the Tribunal has considered [the applicant’s] claims that he will be targeted because of his Chinese ethnicity. The Tribunal acknowledges that memories of the 1998 riots have caused continued anxiety among many members of the Chinese–Indonesian community, exacerbated by events such as the Ahok blasphemy trial. However, the Tribunal finds these riots occurred 20 years ago in the context of a financial crisis and protests against the longstanding Suharto government. Furthermore, as discussed with [the applicant], DFAT assesses it unlikely that anti-Chinese sentiment in Indonesia will lead to a return to the levels of violence experienced in 1998. Having considered the country information and [the applicant’s] evidence about personal circumstances and experiences, the Tribunal considers that the chance that any racial discrimination he may face for reasons related to his Chinese ethnicity will amount to serious harm or significant harm is remote. The Tribunal finds there is no real chance that [the applicant] will face serious harm if he returns to Indonesia now or in the foreseeable future because of his Chinese ethnicity.
Claims that the applicant will face harm because of his Buddhist faith
At the start of the Tribunal hearing [the applicant] raised concerns he would be harmed because of his Buddhist faith. He referred to churches being bombed and targeted and he said this showed Indonesia was not safe for minorities. However, [the applicant’s] evidence was that he was Buddhist, not Christian. He did not identify any problems he had personally experienced in the past because of his Buddhist faith. When it was put to [the applicant] that he did not appear to have had any problems in the past because of his Buddhist faith, he said it was just one of the elements: he was Chinese and Buddhist – that made them dislike him more, it was not that they looked for him because he was Buddhist. Asked who he meant by ‘them’, he said the Muslim majority. It was put to [the applicant] that religious pluralism was an established part of modern Indonesia and that local and international NGOs continued to report that interfaith tolerance remained strong.[15] [The applicant] stated that yes, pluralism is respected but you still get bombs at churches. Questioned further, [the applicant] stated that Buddhism was ‘not that troubled’ in Indonesia.
[15] DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia, 22 December 2017, pp.14–15.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that he will face serious harm or significant harm for reasons related to his religion from members of the Muslim majority or from any other persons or groups. The Tribunal finds, based on [the applicant’s] evidence, that he has not encountered difficulty in Indonesia in the past for reasons related to his Buddhist faith or, more broadly, because of the situation of minority groups such as Christians. Having considered the country information and [the applicant’s] evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that [the applicant] will face serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Indonesia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons that are related to his religion, his ethnicity, or for any other reason.
Conclusion
Refugee criteria
Given its findings of fact, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] left Indonesia to avoid being arrested by the authorities or being harmed by any other person or group in Indonesia. The Tribunal finds [the applicant] has not been truthful about the reasons he left Indonesia in 2015 or why he does not want to return to Indonesia now. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept that he was ever involved in anti-corruption demonstrations in Indonesia or that he has ever suffered harm of any type because of his anti-corruption views and/or the corrupt practices of Indonesian authorities. The Tribunal does not accept he was arrested and detained at a demonstration in 2012 or that he again attracted the attention of those who were looking for him when he attended another protest in 2015 or that the Indonesian authorities will arrest him if he returns to Indonesia or that he is of any adverse interest to Indonesian authorities or anyone else in Indonesia.
The Tribunal finds that there is no credible evidence that anyone in Indonesia wants to harm [the applicant]. Having regard to its findings of fact, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [the applicant] faces a real chance of serious harm in Indonesia as a result of his anti-corruption political opinion or for any other reason relating to his political opinion. Furthermore, while the Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] is an ethnic Chinese Indonesian of Buddhist faith, his evidence does not indicate that he has been harmed in the past for these reasons. In view of this evidence and the available country information, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that, if he returns to Indonesia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, he will face serious harm or significant harm because he is an ethnic Chinese of Buddhist faith and/or a member of a minority group and/or for any other reason. Having considered his claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal does not accept that he faces a real chance of serious harm for any of the reasons set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act including his political opinion, his race and his religion. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [the applicant] has a well-founded fear of persecution as set out in s.5J of the Act.
Complementary protection criteria
Having concluded that [the applicant] does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in relation to the ‘refugee’ criterion.[16] ‘Significant harm’ is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A) and s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out, or the person will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Torture’, ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ and ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ require intentionally inflicted severe mental or physical pain and suffering or extreme humiliation.
[16] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297] and Flick J at [342].
For the reasons that are set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] has participated in anti-corruption demonstrations in Indonesia. Because the Tribunal does not accept that he was arrested at an anti-corruption demonstration in July 2012, it does not accept that he was detained, harmed or mistreated or threatened as claimed, or intimidated into modifying his political activity, or forced to hide in different places. The Tribunal does not accept that [the applicant] has been personally harmed in the past because of any views he holds about corruption or because of corrupt practices in Indonesia. Having regard to its findings of fact and what it has accepted of [the applicant’s] claims and circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Indonesia because of corruption and bribery in Indonesia and/or because he holds anti-corruption views and/or because of his political opinion.
Furthermore, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk [the applicant] will face significant harm because he is an ethnic Chinese, or a person of Buddhist faith or an ethnic Chinese Buddhist. Having regard to the definition of significant harm, the country information set out above and [the applicant’s] evidence about his experiences as a person of Chinese ethnicity of Buddhist faith, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that [the applicant] will face significant harm for reasons relating to his ethnicity and/or because of his religious beliefs. The Tribunal has considered [the applicant’s] claims singularly and cumulatively. The Tribunal is not satisfied, having regard to what has been accepted about [the applicant’s] claims, that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that [the applicant] will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Indonesia.
Second named applicant
In the application to the Department, the second named applicant did not claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason set out in s.5J of the Act and nor did she claim to be owed complementary protection. No claims were advanced before the Tribunal and the evidence does not satisfy the Tribunal she is owed protection as a refugee or that she meets the complementary protection criteria. The Tribunal finds that her application for protection is solely on the basis of her membership of [the applicant’s] family unit.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criteria set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criteria set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Frances Simmons

Member
ATTACHMENT – Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)    there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)    conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)    the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)    significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)    significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)    the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)    the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)    the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)    the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2018] AATA 3697

16 August 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction