1601327 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith, and his wife. The applicant claimed he feared harm and arrest by the Indonesian government and police due to his participation in anti-corruption demonstrations. He alleged he was arrested and detained for a week in 2012 and attended another demonstration in 2015. He also raised concerns about potential harm due to his Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist faith.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion, race, or religion, thereby meeting the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia to Indonesia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the plausibility of his claims in light of available country information.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims regarding his political activities and fear of harm to be not credible. It noted inconsistencies in his evidence, particularly concerning his alleged arrest and detention in 2012, his participation in the 2015 demonstration, and his claims of hiding from authorities. The Tribunal considered country information indicating that demonstrations against corruption are generally tolerated in Indonesia and that the applicant's ability to live and work in Jakarta for an extended period undermined his assertion that he was being sought by authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no credible evidence that the applicant had personally experienced harm due to his Chinese ethnicity or Buddhist faith, and concluded that while societal discrimination might exist, the risk of significant harm was remote.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. It was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, either singularly or cumulatively, based on his political opinion, race, or religion. The second applicant, the applicant's wife, had not advanced any independent claims for protection and her application was based solely on her family unit membership, which did not meet the criteria.