1605617 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity. The applicant claimed to have left Indonesia to escape discrimination and harm from local Indonesians, including theft from his parents' shop and threats of violence. He also asserted that the Indonesian police were unwilling to provide assistance. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, considering both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of discrimination and fear of harm in Indonesia. It noted that the applicant had failed to attend an interview with the Department and that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient detail to establish the relevant facts. The Tribunal applied the principles that mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, and that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them or uncritically accept all allegations. The Tribunal also took into account relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was an Indonesian citizen and that Indonesia was his receiving country. However, it concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) or that he was a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied those criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.